To John

[Jenn]

Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Thnak's Jen for, admoittnig Jnen that you're as gullabelle as a
newly-born "Golden Ears" Jeen.

[George M. Middius]

Witless has a cow.

> > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> comm path?

Goddamit, Jenn, no audio posts are allowed on RAO. Didn't you know they
give Terrierdork grief and offense? Please clean up your act so Scottie
can continue to shine his beacon of purity throughout Usenet.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> comm path?
>
> ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-079C75.12391519092007
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
says...
> In article om>,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > comm path?
> >
> > ScottW
>
> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> differences in digital files.

Yeah, but did he talk about how evil Muslims are? Or how liberals are
destroying America? You're waaay off topic otherwise Jenn.

--
Bill

[vlad]

On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
> ScottW > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > comm path?
>
> > ScottW
>
> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-079C75.12391519092007
> @newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> says...
> > In article om>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> > >
> > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > comm path?
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > differences in digital files.
>
> Yeah, but did he talk about how evil Muslims are? Or how liberals are
> destroying America? You're waaay off topic otherwise Jenn.
>
> --
> Bill

Opps, sorry.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > comm path?
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > differences in digital files.
>
> I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
> comment, Jennifer?
>
> vova

It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Feel free to grab a copy [of Stereophile] and read it.

But Jenn, that would mean spending money. You know perfectly well that
Vladborg is as broke as a '68 Plymouth sitting on blocks.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> > wrote:
>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> preferred pesonal comm path?

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with me in public
that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

"...as I have found it much easier to make predictions about the past than
about the future, I decided to offer some possible explanations for the
commercial failure of the existing hi-rez audio media..."

Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of his observations. ;-)

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...

> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with me in public
> that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial failures:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's talking about
the current magazine, the contents of which are not on line yet.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message
t
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
>> audio formats are commercial failures:
>>
>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
>
> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
> talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
> are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts
that contain no factual content.

(2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the information posted above?

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of his observations. ;-)

LOL You have all the market data, eh Arns?

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> >> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
> >> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
> >> audio formats are commercial failures:
> >>
> >> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
> >
> > That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
> > talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
> > are not on line yet.
>
> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts
> that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts. I didn't find
anything confusing about her post.

> (2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the information posted above?

Jenn's post has nothing at all to do with your "information" as a matter
of fact.

I'm sure that John can speak for himself, but I suspect he did not
credit you primarily because you had nothing to do with his
observations.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> says...
>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> t
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
>>>
>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
>>> talking about the current magazine, the contents of
>>> which are not on line yet.
>>
>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
>> making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.
>
> Sigh...

> Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

> I didn't find anything confusing about her post.

Can't prove it since you made no public determination as to which AISI she
meant until she clarified it slightly.

>> (2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the
>> information posted above?

> Jenn's post has nothing at all to do with your
> "information" as a matter of fact.

> I'm sure that John can speak for himself, but I suspect
> he did not credit you primarily because you had nothing
> to do with his observations.

In fact John has personally responded to my criticisms of high resolution
audio formats in the past, so he is obviously aware of my public involvment
with the opposing viewpoint, some of which he has finally embraced.

Of course, it is well known that John would rather commit public Hari-Kari
than admit that I affected the way he thinks in any significant way. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> t
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >
> >> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
> >> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
> >> audio formats are commercial failures:
> >>
> >> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
> >
> > That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
> > talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
> > are not on line yet.
>
> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts

lol I don't know, I thought it was quite clear and succinct. "As We
See It", "new issue". Seems quite clear.

> that contain no factual content.

Rec.Audio, OPINION, Arny.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> t
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> says...
> >>>
> >>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
> >>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
> >>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
> >>>
> >>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
> >>> talking about the current magazine, the contents of
> >>> which are not on line yet.
> >>
> >> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
> >> making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.
> >
> > Sigh...
>
> > Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.
>
> Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>> t
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
>>>
>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
>>> talking about the current magazine, the contents of
>>> which are not on line yet.
>>
>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
>> making sloppy posts
>
> lol I don't know, I thought it was quite clear and
> succinct. "As We See It", "new issue". Seems quite
> clear.

"new issue" depends on how its distributed to you, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> says...
>>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>>>> t
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
>>>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
>>>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
>>>>> She's talking about the current magazine, the
>>>>> contents of which are not on line yet.
>>>>
>>>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
>>>> making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.
>>>
>>> Sigh...
>>
>>> Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.
>>
>> Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.
>
> The "new issue", Arny.

Never bought it on thenewstand, I take it.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >,
> >>> says...
> >>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >>>> t
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
> >>>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
> >>>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
> >>>>> She's talking about the current magazine, the
> >>>>> contents of which are not on line yet.
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
> >>>> making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.
> >>>
> >>> Sigh...
> >>
> >>> Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.
> >>
> >> Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.
> >
> > The "new issue", Arny.
>
> Never bought it on thenewstand

"Sloppy"

>, I take it.

The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand for some time.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > comm path?
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > differences in digital files.
>
> and what was excellent?
>
> ScottW

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one group of listeners
high-rez digital audio can sound better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and
192kbps.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> . com>,
> ScottW > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
>> > wrote:
>>> In article
>>> om>,
>>>
>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>>
>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
>>>
>>>> ScottW
>>>
>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
>>
>> and what was excellent?

> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the test set up or
analysis.

But many will be impressed by the quality of writing, and overlook the rest.
;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
> >> > wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> om>,
> >>>
> >>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >>>
> >>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> >>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
> >>>
> >>>> ScottW
> >>>
> >>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> >>> audibility of differences in digital files.
> >>
> >> and what was excellent?
>
> > It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
> > group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
> > better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
>
> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the test set up or
> analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.

>
> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing, and overlook the rest.
> ;-)

Whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> t
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
>>>>>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
>>>>>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
>>>>>>> She's talking about the current magazine, the
>>>>>>> contents of which are not on line yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results
>>>>>> from making sloppy posts that contain no factual
>>>>>> content.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh...
>>>>
>>>>> Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.
>>>
>>> The "new issue", Arny.
>>
>> Never bought it on thenewstand
>
> "Sloppy"
>
>> , I take it.
>
> The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand
> for some time.

But there's nothing newer on the SP web site, today.

Boy Jenn, you really are defensive about your comment's absence of reliable
date reference!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> om>,
>>>>>
>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
>>>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ScottW
>>>>>
>>>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
>>>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
>>>>
>>>> and what was excellent?
>>
>>> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
>>> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
>>> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
>>
>> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
>> test set up or analysis.
>
> Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.
>
>>
>> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
>> and overlook the rest. ;-)
>
> Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
writing.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >,
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> t
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
> >>>>>>>> agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
> >>>>>>>> audio formats are commercial failures:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
> >>>>>>> She's talking about the current magazine, the
> >>>>>>> contents of which are not on line yet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results
> >>>>>> from making sloppy posts that contain no factual
> >>>>>> content.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sigh...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.
> >>>
> >>> The "new issue", Arny.
> >>
> >> Never bought it on thenewstand
> >
> > "Sloppy"
> >
> >> , I take it.
> >
> > The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand
> > for some time.
>
> But there's nothing newer on the SP web site, today.

So wait until it becomes available to you, then read it.

>
> Boy Jenn, you really are defensive about your comment's absence of reliable
> date reference!

Really? What's "defensive" about the above?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>> In article
> >>> . com>,
> >>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> om>,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> >>>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ScottW
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> >>>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
> >>>>
> >>>> and what was excellent?
> >>
> >>> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
> >>> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
> >>> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
> >>
> >> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
> >> test set up or analysis.
> >
> > Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.
> >
> >>
> >> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
> >> and overlook the rest. ;-)
> >
> > Whatever.
>
> That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
> writing.

Good writing is good to find.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> .
>>>> net
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> om>,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
>>>>>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ScottW
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
>>>>>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and what was excellent?
>>>>
>>>>> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
>>>>> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
>>>>> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
>>>>
>>>> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
>>>> the test set up or analysis.
>>>
>>> Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
>>>> and overlook the rest. ;-)
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>
>> That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
>> quality of the writing.
>
> Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> >>>>
> >>>> y.
> >>>> net
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> om>,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> >>>>>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ScottW
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> >>>>>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and what was excellent?
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
> >>>>> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
> >>>>> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
> >>>>
> >>>> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
> >>>> the test set up or analysis.
> >>>
> >>> Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
> >>>> and overlook the rest. ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Whatever.
> >>
> >> That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
> >> quality of the writing.
> >
> > Good writing is good to find.
>
> Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

So read the piece when it becomes available to you and see if it is lies
or not.

[vlad]

On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article om>,
>
> > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > > comm path?
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > differences in digital files.
>
> > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
> > comment, Jennifer?
>
> > vova
>
> It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
> it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

vova

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > > > comm path?
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > differences in digital files.
> >
> > > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
> > > comment, Jennifer?
> >
> > > vova
> >
> > It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
> > it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.
>
> So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
> issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".
>
> vova

October.

Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

> Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?

The Hive has no instruments for measuring opinions, so the 'borgs aren't
convinced opinions actually exist.

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 19:07, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>> message
> .
> >>>> net
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> ScottW > wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> om>,
>
> >>>>>>> ScottW > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> >>>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> >>>>>>>> What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> >>>>>>>> preferred pesonal comm path?
>
> >>>>>>>> ScottW
>
> >>>>>>> It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> >>>>>>> audibility of differences in digital files.
>
> >>>>>> and what was excellent?
>
> >>>>> It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
> >>>>> group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
> >>>>> better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.
>
> >>>> Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
> >>>> the test set up or analysis.
>
> >>> Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.
>
> >>>> But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
> >>>> and overlook the rest. ;-)
>
> >>> Whatever.
>
> >> That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
> >> quality of the writing.
>
> > Good writing is good to find.
>
> Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

for poorly written lies, Google Kruger

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 19:54, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

>
> The Hive has no instruments for measuring opinions, so the 'borgs aren't
> convinced opinions actually exist.


you could say the same thing for 'good sounding music'

[vlad]

On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article . com>,
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article om>,
>
> > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > In article om>,
>
> > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> > > > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
> > > > > > comm path?
>
> > > > > > ScottW
>
> > > > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > differences in digital files.
>
> > > > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > > > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
> > > > comment, Jennifer?
>
> > > > vova
>
> > > It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
> > > it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.
>
> > So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
> > issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".
>
> > vova
>
> October.
>
> Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?


You said:

" It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files."

It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion or a fact.
Judging by your refusal to comment on it I take it as another
unfounded opinion of high-ender.

Am I right about it?

Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that whatever cover
price is, in my view, it is a vaste of money. Magazine that keeps
Michael Fremer on a payroll is not worth of serious attention. When
this article will be available online I will read it and then we can
continue discussion.

vova

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(

The October sisue "As We See it" will be posted in our
free on-line archives on October 15.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"vlad" > wrote in message
oups.com
> On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn
> > wrote:
>> In article
>> . com>,
>>

> You said:
>
> " It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> audibility of differences in digital files."

> It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion
> or a fact. Judging by your refusal to comment on it I
> take it as another unfounded opinion of high-ender.

> Am I right about it?

> Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that
> whatever cover price is, in my view, it is a vaste of
> money. Magazine that keeps Michael Fremer on a payroll is
> not worth of serious attention. When this article will be
> available online I will read it and then we can continue
> discussion.

We'be been through a number of these unintentional blind test games before.
The odds of there being a proper unintentional blind test about the same as
the odds of someone becoming an unintentional billionaire.

The way the story goes is that it was planned to be just an ordinary sighted
evaluation, but then someone realized that the information they thought they
were seeing was wrong, so now they want to fantasize that the test was a
proper DBT.

Thing is that it takes more than mere blindness to make a proper test
comparing different formats of media - the test must be level-matched and
time-synched as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> > wrote:
>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(

Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things - I take Jenn to
task for some vague statement of her, and all of a sudden its inflated into
abuse.

> The October sisue "As We See it" will be posted in our
> free on-line archives on October 15.

sisue? I don't even know you! ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 19, 4:56 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with
> me in public that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial
> failures: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

I don't see why say "finally," Mr. Krueger, as I have
expressed this sentiment several times in the past.

> "...as I have found it much easier to make predictions
> about the past than about the future, I decided to offer
> some possible explanations for the commercial failure
> of the existing hi-rez audio media..."
>
> Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of
> his observations. ;-)

That is indeed correct, Mr. Krueger, because you
were _not_ the source of my observations. I give a
number of links in the essay to earlier essays I
wrote on the same subject. My summary was
based on my earlier observations.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "vlad" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn
> > > wrote:
> >> In article
> >> . com>,
> >>
>
> > You said:
> >
> > " It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
> > audibility of differences in digital files."
>
> > It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion
> > or a fact. Judging by your refusal to comment on it I
> > take it as another unfounded opinion of high-ender.
>
> > Am I right about it?
>
> > Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that
> > whatever cover price is, in my view, it is a vaste of
> > money. Magazine that keeps Michael Fremer on a payroll is
> > not worth of serious attention. When this article will be
> > available online I will read it and then we can continue
> > discussion.
>
> We'be been through a number of these unintentional blind test games before.
> The odds of there being a proper unintentional blind test about the same as
> the odds of someone becoming an unintentional billionaire.
>
> The way the story goes is that it was planned to be just an ordinary sighted
> evaluation, but then someone realized that the information they thought they
> were seeing was wrong, so now they want to fantasize that the test was a
> proper DBT.
>
> Thing is that it takes more than mere blindness to make a proper test
> comparing different formats of media - the test must be level-matched and
> time-synched as well.

Once you read it, you can write from an informed POV.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred
> > > > > > > pesonal
> > > > > > > comm path?
> >
> > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > > differences in digital files.
> >
> > > > > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > > > > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
> > > > > comment, Jennifer?
> >
> > > > > vova
> >
> > > > It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
> > > > it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.
> >
> > > So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
> > > issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".
> >
> > > vova
> >
> > October.
> >
> > Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?
>
>
> You said:
>
> " It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> differences in digital files."
>
> It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion or a fact.
> Judging by your refusal to comment on it I take it as another
> unfounded opinion of high-ender.
>
> Am I right about it?

I'm not refusing to comment on anything, Vlad. Read the piece, then we
can discuss.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
> > On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> > > wrote:
> >> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> > trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> > a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
>
> Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things

Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.

[vlad]

On Sep 20, 11:04 am, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > in message
> ups.com
> > > On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> > > > wrote:
> > >> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> > > Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> > > trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> > > a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
>
> > Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
>
> Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.

When has nothing to say, spit on the opponent. Yes, Jennifer?

vlad

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:04 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > in message
> > ups.com
> > > > On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> > > > trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> > > > a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
> >
> > > Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
> >
> > Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.
>
> When has nothing to say, spit on the opponent. Yes, Jennifer?
>
> vlad

See Arny's comment above.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:03 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > > > > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred
> > > > > > > > > pesonal
> > > > > > > > > comm path?
> >
> > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > > > > differences in digital files.
> >
> > > > > > > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > > > > > > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > > > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > comment, Jennifer?
> >
> > > > > > > vova
> >
> > > > > > It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and
> > > > > > read
> > > > > > it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.
> >
> > > > > So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
> > > > > issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".
> >
> > > > > vova
> >
> > > > October.
> >
> > > > Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?
> >
> > > You said:
> >
> > > " It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > differences in digital files."
> >
> > > It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion or a fact.
> > > Judging by your refusal to comment on it I take it as another
> > > unfounded opinion of high-ender.
> >
> > > Am I right about it?
> >
> > I'm not refusing to comment on anything, Vlad. Read the piece, then we
> > can discuss.
>
> Oct. 15... I'll have to mark my calendar....yawn.
>
> ScottW

Your choice of course.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:49 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 11:03 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > om>,
> >
> > > > > > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
> > > > > > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > > > > > pesonal
> > > > > > > > > > > comm path?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > > > > > > > It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > differences in digital files.
> >
> > > > > > > > > I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
> > > > > > > > > "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > > > > > differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote
> > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > comment, Jennifer?
> >
> > > > > > > > > vova
> >
> > > > > > > > It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.
> >
> > > > > > > So is it September or October issue that you referring to?
> > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your
> > > > > > > "opinion".
> >
> > > > > > > vova
> >
> > > > > > October.
> >
> > > > > > Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation
> > > > > > marks?
> >
> > > > > You said:
> >
> > > > > " It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > > > differences in digital files."
> >
> > > > > It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion or a fact.
> > > > > Judging by your refusal to comment on it I take it as another
> > > > > unfounded opinion of high-ender.
> >
> > > > > Am I right about it?
> >
> > > > I'm not refusing to comment on anything, Vlad. Read the piece, then we
> > > > can discuss.
> >
> > > Oct. 15... I'll have to mark my calendar....yawn.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Your choice of course.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Considering the difficulties of properly conducting a blind test as
> clearly reinforced by all those claiming such tests are useless to
> consumers and Atkinson claiming such tests protocols are beyond the
> ability of his reviewers to conduct......I will find it interesting
> how someone could "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-
> rez formats.
>
> ScottW

Great, enjoy the article.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 11:49 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 11:04 am, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > > > in message
> > > > ups.com
> > > > > > On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> > > > > > Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> > > > > > trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> > > > > > a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
> >
> > > > > Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
> >
> > > > Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.
> >
> > > When has nothing to say, spit on the opponent. Yes, Jennifer?
> >
> > > vlad
> >
> > See Arny's comment above.
>
> Arny made you insult Vlad?
>
> ScottW

Nope. And if you don't understand the comment, never mind.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn, you're not seriously expecting vladborg to grow up, are you?

Krooger:
> > > > Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things

Jenn:
> > > Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.

vladborg:
> > When has nothing to say, spit on the opponent. Yes, Jennifer?

Jenn:
> See Arny's comment above.

Arnii gets a pass for being snotty because you're a girl and you scare
the poop out of vladborg.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio issue.

> > See Arny's comment above.

> Arny made you insult Vlad?

Translation: "duh! Me so stuuuupid!"

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot yapped:

> Considering the difficulties of properly conducting a blind test as
> clearly reinforced by all those claiming such tests are useless to
> consumers

Nobody is stopping you from doing your own "blind tests". What's that,
Scooter? You haven't ever done a single one, ever, in your entire
pathetic life? Not even one? Wow.

> Atkinson claiming such tests protocols are beyond the
> ability of his reviewers to conduct.

Here's a thought for you: Find out from JA or another publisher how much
it would cost to include "scientific" blind tests as part of reviews.
The cost would include the facility, equipment, staffing, and auditing.
Then, with that amount known, go forth and enlist all the other
squinty-eyed nerds who don't trust their ears, and pool your money. If
the cost runs, say, $30,000 per month, you would only need 1000
subscribers paying $30 per issue to git 'er done. Sounds great! You
agents of "truth" would subsidize all that "science" for the gullible
money-wasters, You'll get a medal from the Audio TrVth Foundation, fer
shur!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 2:27 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> Thats almost as senseless as Jenn's comment.
> You two make quite a pair.

As do you and Ludwig, 2pid.

[George M. Middius]

Witless, are you having another breakdown?

> > Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio issue.

> Pimping for S'phile is now an audio issue? Since when?

What do you call it when a slobbering imbecile (no names mentioned,
note) complains about Stereophile's content and slanders its publisher?
I assume it's not "pimping", whatever that means in Scottiespeak.

While we're on the subject, what do you call it when a muddle-headed
crackpot touts The Thenthible Thound and his own books on Usenet?
I await enlightenment from your vast store of wisdom, you nimrod.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> > Witless, are you having another breakdown?

Another tacit confirmation from the Witless One.

> > What do you call it when a slobbering imbecile (no names mentioned,
> > note) complains about Stereophile's content and slanders its publisher?
> > I assume it's not "pimping", whatever that means in Scottiespeak.

> I think the term whoosh does you justice.

If you're implying that you were mocking somebody else, I admit to
missing the post where that person misused "pimping" the way you did.

> A dimension not of sight nor sound nor even mind...
> It's beyond the twilight zone.

As Gregipus used to say, zzzzzz.....

I guarantee nobody else has the slightest idea what you meant by that.

> > While we're on the subject, what do you call it when a muddle-headed
> > crackpot touts The Thenthible Thound and his own books on Usenet?
> > I await enlightenment from your vast store of wisdom, you nimrod.

> Futile. Feel free to seek enlightenment anytime.

Nothing deters The Idiot from tooting his one-note horn....

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 20, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> net> wrote:
> > Jenn, you're not seriously expecting vladborg to grow up, are you?
> >
> > Krooger:
> >
> > > > > > Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
> >
> > Jenn:
> >
> > > > > Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.
> >
> > vladborg:
> >
> > > > When has nothing to say, spit on the opponent. Yes, Jennifer?
> >
> > Jenn:
> >
> > > See Arny's comment above.
> >
> > Arnii gets a pass for being snotty because you're a girl and you scare
> > the poop out of vladborg.
>
> Thats almost as senseless as Jenn's comment.
> You two make quite a pair.
>
> ScottW

Let's see if you can follow some very simple sense:
1. Arny states that John and I are "co-dependent".
2. I reply with a statement that indicates that he and Vlad are
codependent, because they certainly are every bit as much as John and I
are (ever notice how Vlad shows up mostly to defend Arny or to be
critical of me?)
3. Vlad replys that I'm "spitting on the opponent".
4. I ask Vlad to see Arny's statement, wherein HE was "spitting on the
opponent.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
Effect".

> Insult Vlad because Arny insulted you. Brilliant.

etc., etc.

It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
He's completely earned it.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot yapped:

> Considering the difficulties of properly conducting a blind test as
> clearly reinforced by all those claiming such tests are useless to
> consumers

Nobody is stopping you from doing your own "blind tests". What's that,
Scooter? You haven't ever done a single one, ever, in your entire
pathetic life? Not even one? Wow.

> Atkinson claiming such tests protocols are beyond the
> ability of his reviewers to conduct.

Here's a thought for you: Find out from JA or another publisher how much
it would cost to include "scientific" blind tests as part of reviews.
The cost would include the facility, equipment, staffing, and auditing.
Then, with that amount known, go forth and enlist all the other
squinty-eyed nerds who don't trust their ears, and pool your money. If
the cost runs, say, $30,000 per month, you would only need 1000
subscribers paying $30 per issue to git 'er done. Sounds great! You
agents of "truth" would subsidize all that "science" for the gullible
money-wasters, You'll get a medal from the Audio TrVth Foundation, fer
shur!

[George M. Middius]

Yapper yapped:

> > Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
> > Effect".

> > It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
> > He's completely earned it.

> Whenever George can't follow along,
> he has but one option to rationalize his limited ability.

Uh-oh. Witlessmongrel's "motor" is "racing" again. ;-)

Scottie, maybe your transmission is missing a linkage. Have you had your
gears and pulleys checked lately?

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

>SACD and DVD-A are both technical successes: the commercial failure
>is largely, but not exclusively, because most music purchasers are not
>at the core audio buffs and do not care if a recording is great or
>merely okay. While neither format is perfect, both are potentially
>much better than either CD or LP.

Well, let's not forget that the dumb ****ing greedy *******s could not
agree on a single new hi-rez format. If they had, many more people
would have bought-in.

The stupid assholes cut their own throats, and now it's too late.

[dizzy]

dizzy wrote:

>Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>>SACD and DVD-A are both technical successes: the commercial failure
>>is largely, but not exclusively, because most music purchasers are not
>>at the core audio buffs and do not care if a recording is great or
>>merely okay. While neither format is perfect, both are potentially
>>much better than either CD or LP.
>
>Well, let's not forget that the dumb ****ing greedy *******s could not
>agree on a single new hi-rez format. If they had, many more people
>would have bought-in.
>
>The stupid assholes cut their own throats, and now it's too late.

And the same ****'s going-on today in the HDTV formats. I'd buy a
player today, if it were not for the format war, and the fact that
movies are coming-out that are either one or the other.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot yapped:

> Considering the difficulties of properly conducting a blind test as
> clearly reinforced by all those claiming such tests are useless to
> consumers

Nobody is stopping you from doing your own "blind tests". What's that,
Scooter? You haven't ever done a single one, ever, in your entire
pathetic life? Not even one? Wow.

> Atkinson claiming such tests protocols are beyond the
> ability of his reviewers to conduct.

Here's a thought for you: Find out from JA or another publisher how much
it would cost to include "scientific" blind tests as part of reviews.
The cost would include the facility, equipment, staffing, and auditing.
Then, with that amount known, go forth and enlist all the other
squinty-eyed nerds who don't trust their ears, and pool your money. If
the cost runs, say, $30,000 per month, you would only need 1000
subscribers paying $30 per issue to git 'er done. Sounds great! You
agents of "truth" would subsidize all that "science" for the gullible
money-wasters, You'll get a medal from the Audio TrVth Foundation, fer
shur!

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> > Witless, are you having another breakdown?

Another tacit confirmation from the Witless One.

> > What do you call it when a slobbering imbecile (no names mentioned,
> > note) complains about Stereophile's content and slanders its publisher?
> > I assume it's not "pimping", whatever that means in Scottiespeak.

> I think the term whoosh does you justice.

If you're implying that you were mocking somebody else, I admit to
missing the post where that person misused "pimping" the way you did.

> A dimension not of sight nor sound nor even mind...
> It's beyond the twilight zone.

As Gregipus used to say, zzzzzz.....

I guarantee nobody else has the slightest idea what you meant by that.

> > While we're on the subject, what do you call it when a muddle-headed
> > crackpot touts The Thenthible Thound and his own books on Usenet?
> > I await enlightenment from your vast store of wisdom, you nimrod.

> Futile. Feel free to seek enlightenment anytime.

Nothing deters The Idiot from tooting his one-note horn....

[George M. Middius]

Yapper yapped:

> > Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
> > Effect".

> > It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
> > He's completely earned it.

> Whenever George can't follow along,
> he has but one option to rationalize his limited ability.

Uh-oh. Witlessmongrel's "motor" is "racing" again. ;-)

Scottie, maybe your transmission is missing a linkage. Have you had your
gears and pulleys checked lately?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>
> Considering the difficulties of properly conducting a blind test as
> clearly reinforced by all those claiming such tests are useless to
> consumers and Atkinson claiming such tests protocols are beyond the
> ability of his reviewers to conduct......I will find it interesting
> how someone could "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead
> hi- rez formats.
>
> ScottW



IS there a question in there somewhere ? Spill it out will you.

My foot is itching again.

[George M. Middius]

Uh-oh. I've made Terrierdork jealous.

> > The Idiot yapped:

> > Nobody is stopping you from doing your own "blind tests". What's that,
> > Scooter? You haven't ever done a single one, ever, in your entire
> > pathetic life? Not even one? Wow.

.... and the count stands at zero. Just like somebody's IQ. ;-)

> > Here's a thought for you: Find out from JA or another publisher how much
> > it would cost to include "scientific" blind tests as part of reviews.

> He's already dismissed the idea as beyond their ability but in reality
> it wouldn't take
> much effort for a PC controlled switcher with data archived remotely
> on another server so the subject could not know results and could
> effectively self-test.

That's stupid even by your standards, Scooter.

> The following nonsense is a strawman of can't do argument
> worthy of the US gov.

> > The cost would include the facility, equipment, staffing, and auditing.

Sorry, this isn't "nonsense". You absolutely need a controlled
environment (facility). You absolutely need equipment that's proven to
be transparent. You absolutely need somebody to set up the gear
(staffing), and you absolutely need a way of verifying the integrity of
the "tests".

> > Then, with that amount known, go forth and enlist all the other
> > squinty-eyed nerds who don't trust their ears, and pool your money. If
> > the cost runs, say, $30,000 per month, you would only need 1000
> > subscribers paying $30 per issue to git 'er done. Sounds great! You
> > agents of "truth" would subsidize all that "science" for the gullible
> > money-wasters, You'll get a medal from the Audio TrVth Foundation, fer
> > shur!

I'm sorry you're still retarded, but once again, you've failed to keep
up. Get some higher octane fuel for your "motor", you blithering idiot.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 6:37 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> Whenever George can't follow along,
> he has but one option to rationalize his limited ability.

If 2pid was a lightbulb, his output would be measured in hundreths of
a watt.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.

No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created. My
point was that as the knowledge that a listener is taking
part in a test changes the way he listens -- a point that
Arny Krueger and I agree on -- more relevant test results
could be gotten if the listeners are not aware they are
being tested. This was the case with the tests I discuss
in the October issue's editorial leader, which were
designed by Phillips Hobbs of Linn and carried out at
Queen Mary University in London at the recent AES
Conference.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 2:55 pm, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
>
> No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.

2pid did. Now that he has planted that 'thought' in his 'mind,'
there'll be no shaking him from this position.

2pid 'wins' again.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>
> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> it was confusing.

No, I didn't. Therefore your automatic attempt to insult John is
nonsense.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot shows his abysmal ignorance.

> > Uh-oh. I've made Terrierdork jealous.

> > > > The Idiot yapped:
> > > > Nobody is stopping you from doing your own "blind tests". What's that,
> > > > Scooter? You haven't ever done a single one, ever, in your entire
> > > > pathetic life? Not even one? Wow.

> > ... and the count stands at zero. Just like somebody's IQ. ;-)

> > > > Here's a thought for you: Find out from JA or another publisher how much
> > > > it would cost to include "scientific" blind tests as part of reviews.

> > > He's already dismissed the idea as beyond their ability but in reality
> > > it wouldn't take
> > > much effort for a PC controlled switcher with data archived remotely
> > > on another server so the subject could not know results and could
> > > effectively self-test.

> > That's stupid even by your standards, Scooter.

> Unsubstantiated nonsense.....let me ask you George,
> How hard is it to get a PC to control a relay?
> I don't mean how hard is it for you.

You're such a ****ing moron! You don't have a ****ing clue how to run a
real DBT. It's obvious from your hideously ignorant intonations. And
this blithering comes from an "adult" who claims to be an "engineer" and
a "manager". I, for one, am stunned at the depth and purity of your
unbelievable stupidity and ignorance.

> > > > The cost would include the facility, equipment, staffing, and auditing.

> > Sorry, this isn't "nonsense". You absolutely need a controlled
> > environment (facility).

> Why? We get all those subjective accolades without benefit of a
> controlled facility. Why do you hold objective tests to a different
> std?

This is so stupid I'm going to skip it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid!

> Sounds a bit Nanci Pelosi like to me.

Whatever that means. Do you even know who she is, you ignorant putz?

> > You absolutely need equipment that's proven to
> > be transparent.

> Again...why? In speakers there is no such thing
> so I guess ALL listening tests, subjective or objective,
> are out the window.

A crescendo of stupidity! I'm in awe.

> The reviewer can use his reference gear.

You're unbelievably stupid and ignorant. Did I say that before? You're a
transcendental moron of epic proportions.

> >You absolutely need somebody to set up the gear
> > (staffing),

> You mean John's reviewers aren't even competent enough
> to set up audio gear? That's quite damning of you.

No, that's not what I mean, you veritable volcano of monstrous
imbecility. Your stupidity is so all-consuming that I'm surprised you
can remember how to turn on your computer.

> > and you absolutely need a way of verifying the integrity of
> > the "tests".

> I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of trust.

Trust is not the issue, you millennial moron.

> At some point, you're always trusting someone anyway.

Forget about "trust", you appalling dimbulb.

> I can see why you might want to think all the reviewers
> would stoop to cheating the system......but I'm willing
> to give 'em a chance.

Is there no cure for your stupidity? We've been bashing you over the
head with it for years and you still show no signs of awakening.

> All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
> software that store results over the web.

Stupid beyond words.

> All they have to do is hook it up, train, let the PC
> make the random selections without cheating, and
> choose. The fact that this is beyond your
> comprehension is not surprising.

Funny how it's always your stupidest and most ignorant ****wad comments
that are supposedly too deep for the Smart Guys.

Scooter, you don't have the faintest idea what you're babbling about.
The problems with your fantastic scenario have been explained to you
over and over in the past, but like the epitome of stubborn stupidity
that you are, you mulishly resist absorbing even the slightest trace of
information.

One word to send you spinning off in another meaningless direction:
Motivation. Try that on for size, you tragically doltish nincompoop.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 1:28 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > it was confusing.
> >
> > No, I didn't. Therefore your automatic attempt to insult John is
> > nonsense.
>
> Don't get your panties in a wad (if you wear any)
> about what I said before you can get a grip on what you say.

A. Your sentence makes no sense.
B. It's you who is getting his panties in a wad (if you wear any).

>
> See my reply to ssshhhhhh where I pointed that you said in response
> to my
> query...What was so excellent about it?
>
> "It's about an "unintentional" blind test......."

Correct. I didn't say that the test was unintentionally created.

>
> You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
>
> BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.

Whatever.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>
> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> it was confusing.

No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
"unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
had no idea they were taking part in a test.

You really do need to read the article before you criticize
it.

> Not more show testing with large listener groups
> all breathing and farting in crappy rooms bored to tears
> by too many seminars, lousy career outlook,

No.

> http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070921/harmon-international-har-buy...
> (Harmon buyout falling apart)

Thank you for the link. I had heard rumors. A lot of deals
are collapsing due to the drying-up of large-scale credit.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 6:13 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
> Effect".
>
> > Insult Vlad because Arny insulted you. Brilliant.
>
> etc., etc.
>
> It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
> He's completely earned it.

I guess I jumped the gun a couple of years ago, but I'm glad that it's
OK to do so now.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 7:05 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:44 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .

> > Uh-oh. Witlessmongrel's "motor" is "racing" again. ;-)
>
> Barely idling and still you can't keep up.

I've figured it out: 2pid doesn't realize that he's been lapped
several times. He 'thinks' he's in front... LOL!

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 1:28 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > > > it was confusing.
> >
> > > > No, I didn't. Therefore your automatic attempt to insult John is
> > > > nonsense.
> >
> > > Don't get your panties in a wad (if you wear any)
> > > about what I said before you can get a grip on what you say.
> >
> > A. Your sentence makes no sense.
>
> Perhaps not to you but that is becoming increasingly frequent.

Really Scott, read the sentence out loud to someone else and see if it
makes sense.

>
>
> > B. It's you who is getting his panties in a wad (if you wear any).
>
> I don't. But I do like the feel of silk.

Can't blame you there.

>
> >
> >
> >
> > > See my reply to ssshhhhhh where I pointed that you said in response
> > > to my
> > > query...What was so excellent about it?
> >
> > > "It's about an "unintentional" blind test......."
> >
> > Correct. I didn't say that the test was unintentionally created.
>
> Lol...the unintentional test that was not created.....

Who said that it wasn't created? I simply didn't say that it was
unintentionally created. Read the piece before you become so critical.
Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves John.

> Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> of unintentional intelligent design?
>
> > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >
> > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
> >
> > Whatever.
>
> So I guess you're familiar with the issue.

Nope.

> So maybe you can help me with this..
> All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> to do what he did blah blah blah....
> (while the right is calling for him to step down).
>
> I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an issue
> for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> but I also don't think
> he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?

I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds about
such things.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > it was confusing.
> >
> > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> I wonder how many appreciated that deception.

What deception?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 20, 11:40 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Yapper barked:

> > A dimension not of sight nor sound nor even mind...
> > It's beyond the twilight zone.
>
> As Gregipus used to say, zzzzzz.....

Don't sleep, George. 2pid has allowed us to see inside his 'mind.'

I'm sure that 2pid was referring to the episode where the protagonist
was carefully plotting the perfect murder. He wore disguises as he
rented an apartment and did other murder-related activities. The
problem was that this vainglorious person had a large port wine stain
on his cheek. The protagonist was so repulsed by it he literally
blocked it out of his mind, and he was easily recognizable by anybody
who saw him.

2pid is admitting that he, too, is ignoring the huge turd on the
dinner table. 2pid's port wine stain is his stupidity, which he is
incapable of acknowledging. It may appear sometimes that 2pid publicly
displays his stupidity as a badge of honor. Rather, 2pid once was
fully aware of how stupid he is. He's just blotted it from his 'mind.'

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 3:27 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> Your status as ignorant pathetic buttsniffer is secure.

LOL!

Trolling for a licking...again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 4:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > ScottW > wrote:

> > > See my reply to ssshhhhhh where I pointed that you said in response
> > > to my
> > > query...What was so excellent about it?
>
> > > "It's about an "unintentional" blind test......."
>
> > Correct. I didn't say that the test was unintentionally created.
>
> Lol...the unintentional test that was not created.....
> Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> of unintentional intelligent design?

....and he laughs. As a teen might write, OMG! LOL!

Um, 2pid, it's probably best if you just keep quiet. This truly is for
your sake. I'm more than happy to keep laughing at you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 4:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:

> I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?

Another clue to the source of 2pid's stupidity: rigidity. Once you've
made up your 'mind,' there's no changing it. We should still have
McCarthyism by 2pid's 'logic.'

You and Ludwig, for example, may learn a positive impression of gays
or blacks if one had saved your life. Or would you keep the same
hateful views toward the groups that you despise if member of one of
them saved your life?

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 4:28 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:40 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .

> > This is so stupid I'm going to skip it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid!
>
> Translation: He's got me there. No way to refute that one.

Good plan, 2pid. Don't argue with obvious facts.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 21, 5:39 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> I wonder how many appreciated that deception.

The four of us who took part as listeners in one of
the tests very much appreciated being told after the
event that it _was_ a test. Otherwise, we would have
started doubting our hearing or even our sanity.

> > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > it.
>
> Well...get it on your website. Pull a few strings, have you
> no clout?

I asked the person who is responsible for deciding what
content is posted when on our site and I (for that person is
me) reminded myself that the current issue's content is
posted when the next issue hits the stands. That way,
those, like youself, who have expressed a keen interest
in what has been written, will purchase a copy on the
newstand or maybe even subscribe.

> Don't you think meaningful listening tests need to be an
> intimate environment, one subject at a time?

Yes. But even though, in the Linn test I describe in the October
issue, the 4 of use were sitting in a dedicated listening room, 2
in front, 2 in back. we had no problem hearing differences.
Which was why we were doubting our hearing because we
weren't expecting to hear any differences and there was no
apparent reason for there to be any audible differences.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 6:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > ScottW > wrote:

> > > I wonder how many appreciated that deception.
>
> > What deception?
>
> The intentional deception required to create unintentional subjects.

You see, Jenn, how 2pid cannot admit how badly he butchered the
original meaning, arguing endlessly about nothing. Instead, he now
shifts and is righteously ****ed about some other trifle. And off
he'll go!

Go ahead and let him 'win.' There's no point in trying to get 2pid to
see how unintelligent he makes himself look.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
> > Effect".

> > > Insult Vlad because Arny insulted you. Brilliant.

> > etc., etc.
> > It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
> > He's completely earned it.

> I guess I jumped the gun a couple of years ago, but I'm glad that it's
> OK to do so now.

Like you needed encouragement? I was offering support specifically to
Jenn.

However, if you too need the go ahead, I'll clarify: It's OK -- no, make
that utterly reasonable and entirely justified -- to make direct
reference to Scottie's bad character, low-functioning mind, and lack of
moral fiber.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > > > it was confusing.
> >
> > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > > I wonder how many appreciated that deception.
> >
> > What deception?
>
> The intentional deception required to create unintentional subjects.
>
> ScottW

I see. Well, it's my impression that these guys are all friends. I
doubt that they looked at the "deception" as a negative thing.

Seems like the ultimate blind test for this kind of thing.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 3:43 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 1:41 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 21, 1:28 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > > > In article . com>,
> >
> > > > > > ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could
> > > > > > > > > "unintentionally"
> > > > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > > > > > it was confusing.
> >
> > > > > > No, I didn't. Therefore your automatic attempt to insult John is
> > > > > > nonsense.
> >
> > > > > Don't get your panties in a wad (if you wear any)
> > > > > about what I said before you can get a grip on what you say.
> >
> > > > A. Your sentence makes no sense.
> >
> > > Perhaps not to you but that is becoming increasingly frequent.
> >
> > Really Scott, read the sentence out loud to someone else and see if it
> > makes sense.
>
> Response....someone losing their grip?
> Apparently they got it.

I confess; I get the syntax now. My mistake.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > B. It's you who is getting his panties in a wad (if you wear any).
> >
> > > I don't. But I do like the feel of silk.
> >
> > Can't blame you there.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > See my reply to ssshhhhhh where I pointed that you said in response
> > > > > to my
> > > > > query...What was so excellent about it?
> >
> > > > > "It's about an "unintentional" blind test......."
> >
> > > > Correct. I didn't say that the test was unintentionally created.
> >
> > > Lol...the unintentional test that was not created.....
> >
> > Who said that it wasn't created? I simply didn't say that it was
> > unintentionally created.
>
> No you said it was an unintentional test which is a poor description
> as there was clearly an intentional test, just one with unintentional
> subjects.

From the POV of the subjects, it was an "unintentional test".

>
> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
>
> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
>
> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves John.
>
> Nice blanket smear.

Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...

> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent what I
> say.
> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff deserves
> a pass.

The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING without
you going off on it. At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)

>
> >
> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
> >
> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >
> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
> >
> > > > Whatever.
> >
> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
> >
> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an issue
> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> > > but I also don't think
> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
> >
> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
>
> http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
>
> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds about
> > such things.
>
> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city that
> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.
> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a meaningless
> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty ridiculous.
> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted support
> on my side.
>
> ScottW

It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him just
before this change of mind, or did he already know that she's gay?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>snip
>
>
> I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of trust.
> At some point, you're always trusting someone anyway.
> I can see why you might want to think all the reviewers
> would stoop to cheating the system......but I'm willing
> to give 'em a chance.
>
> All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
> software that store results over the web.
> All they have to do is hook it up, train, let the PC
> make the random selections without cheating, and
> choose. The fact that this is beyond your
> comprehension is not surprising.
>
> ScottW


There's something wrong with these ideas you're proposing
above. I'd like expound on it and exchange views with you
but... if, and only if, you promise not to "run" away with the
"thing" in "TUCK" again like the last time you did before
time after time.

Do you, do you, do you ?

At some point in time, this shameful behavior of yours and your
ilk has got to be taken into account. Sorry for demanding some
form of assurance from you before the opening moves.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 6:50 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Jenn, what you're now experiencing is informally known as "the Scottie
> > > Effect".
> > > > Insult Vlad because Arny insulted you. Brilliant.
> > > etc., etc.
> > > It's perfectly OK to call Scottie a moron or imbecile at this point.
> > > He's completely earned it.
> > I guess I jumped the gun a couple of years ago, but I'm glad that it's
> > OK to do so now.
>
> Like you needed encouragement? I was offering support specifically to
> Jenn.

Oh, I thought that perhaps I had jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
I was glad to be vindicated at last.

> However, if you too need the go ahead, I'll clarify: It's OK -- no, make
> that utterly reasonable and entirely justified -- to make direct
> reference to Scottie's bad character, low-functioning mind, and lack of
> moral fiber.

Thank you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 9:58 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 21, 4:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
>
> > Another clue to the source of 2pid's stupidity: rigidity.
>
> We know you think bending to ones personal self interest is
> a sign of integrity.

What higher calling kept you out of the service again? LOL!

> You RIP'd.

And ( once again) YNS'd (You Never Served)

LOL!

How can you continually melt down for all to see, and still be the
only one that doesn't get it? LOL!

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of trust.
>>> At some point, you're always trusting someone anyway.
>>> I can see why you might want to think all the reviewers
>>> would stoop to cheating the system......but I'm willing
>>> to give 'em a chance.
>>>
>>> All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
>>> software that store results over the web.
>>> All they have to do is hook it up, train, let the PC
>>> make the random selections without cheating, and
>>> choose. The fact that this is beyond your
>>> comprehension is not surprising.
>>>
>>> ScottW
>>
>>
>> There's something wrong with these ideas you're proposing
>> above. I'd like expound on it and exchange views with you
>
> Go ahead.


Okey.

While the reviewer is listening to your proposed simple DBT
as above, when would the reviewer determine whether the sound
is different or not while listening critically ?




>> but... if, and only if, you promise not to "run" away with the
>> "thing" in "TUCK" again like the last time you did before
>> time after time.
>>
>> Do you, do you, do you ?
>
> I never run away from rational debate.

That's because you're irrational 100% of the time.


>> At some point in time, this shameful behavior of yours and your
>> ilk has got to be taken into account. Sorry for demanding some
>> form of assurance from you before the opening moves.
>
>
> Don't apologize for things you have every intention of doing again.


When did I ran away from you and your ilk ?

Enthral me with ferocity.

___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________


> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 21, 11:02 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 9:58 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 21, 4:18 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> >> I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> >> gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> >> soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
>
> >> > Another clue to the source of 2pid's stupidity: rigidity.
>
> >> We know you think bending to ones personal self interest is
> >> a sign of integrity.
>
> > What higher calling kept you out of the service again? LOL!
>
> college....in '75 there seemed little need. All the services were
> rapidly downsizing discharging far more than admitting but
> the reality of those times are beyond your comprehension.

Why would you assume that?

So you're saying times change (when it comes to you)...

> >> You RIP'd.
>
> > And ( once again) YNS'd (You Never Served)
>
> Yeah..I didn't take xx years of military training and then
> walk out.

....but times do not change (when it comes to me). Hypocrite.

Anyway, neither did I, 2pid. But that's beyond your comprehension.
LOL!

What this does show is the complete ossification of your 'mind.'
Beyond rigid.

> > LOL!
>
> > How can you continually melt down for all to see, and still be the
> > only one that doesn't get it? LOL!
>
> I can tell the realization of what you did to your
> career with your token RIP is haunting you.
> Boo.

And that would be...? LOL! You make no sense whatsover.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> >> > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> >> > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >> >
> >> > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >> >
> >> > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> >> > > > > it was confusing.
> >> >
> >> > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> >> > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> >> > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> >> > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> >> > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> >> > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >> >
> >> > > I wonder how many appreciated that deception.
> >> >
> >> > What deception?
> >>
> >> The intentional deception required to create unintentional subjects.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > I see. Well, it's my impression that these guys are all friends.
>
> This is like discovery in a civil case....now we know this "test"
> couldn't have been a sampling of the normal population.
> Not using a bunch of leftie nutter friends of Atkinson.
> I suggest sane subjects for future tests.

See, there you go...

>
> Tell me at least this time he actually published the raw
> data so his conclusions can be checked for validity.
>
> ScottW

This was not that formal a test.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article om>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >>
> >> No you said it was an unintentional test which is a poor description
> >> as there was clearly an intentional test, just one with unintentional
> >> subjects.
> >
> > From the POV of the subjects, it was an "unintentional test".
>
> How could they hold such a POV when they had no idea
> they were subjects of a test or that a test even was taking place?

You'll have to read the piece, I guess.

> Did the proctors subsequently confess?

Yup.

> Any serious injuries
> in the resulting riot?

You must be great at parties.

> >
> >>
> >> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
> >>
> >> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
> >>
> >> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves John.
> >>
> >> Nice blanket smear.
> >
> > Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...
>
> It's your smear....you wish I would take it lightly?

You have a very low threshold of what a "smear" is.

>
> >
> >> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> >> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent what I
> >> say.
> >> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff deserves
> >> a pass.
> >
> > The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING without
> > you going off on it.
>
> I'm sure he could say, "I'm sorry, that was wrong, I shouldn't have."
> or any number of similar comments.
> So clearly ANYTHING is not correct.
>
> > At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)
>
> I have no idea what you're talking and am even less confident
> I want to know.

OK.

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> >> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
> >> >
> >> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >> >
> >> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
> >> >
> >> > > > Whatever.
> >> >
> >> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
> >> >
> >> > Nope.
> >> >
> >> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> >> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> >> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> >> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> >> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
> >> >
> >> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an issue
> >> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> >> > > but I also don't think
> >> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> >> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
> >>
> >> http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
> >>
> >> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds about
> >> > such things.
> >>
> >> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> >> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> >> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city that
> >> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.
> >> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a meaningless
> >> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty ridiculous.
> >> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> >> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted support
> >> on my side.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him just
> > before this change of mind,
>
> That is what I understand.
>
> http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9664
>
> > or did he already know that she's gay?
>
> Considering his emotional breakdown at the news conference
> he didn't appear to have come to terms with it yet.

Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views falling by the
wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's just an
abstract concept any longer. I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives,
were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana."

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Sep, 06:03, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article . com>,
> > ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
>
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> >> > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> >> > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
>
> >> > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>
> >> > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> >> > > > > it was confusing.
>
> >> > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> >> > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> >> > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> >> > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> >> > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> >> > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> >> > > I wonder how many appreciated that deception.
>
> >> > What deception?
>
> >> The intentional deception required to create unintentional subjects.
>
> >> ScottW
>
> > I see. Well, it's my impression that these guys are all friends.
>
> This is like discovery in a civil case....now we know this "test"
> couldn't have been a sampling of the normal population.
> Not using a bunch of leftie nutter friends of Atkinson.
> I suggest sane subjects for future tests.
>
> Tell me at least this time he actually published the raw
> data so his conclusions can be checked for validity.
>
> ScottW

good idea!
let's test stereo equipment on people
who don't give a rat's ass about music and/or good sound.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > those, like youself, who have expressed a keen interest
> > in what has been written, will purchase a copy on the
> > newstand or maybe even subscribe.
>
> I glanced at the only "newstands" around (if you can call them
> that) in the drugstore and supermarket....no Stereophile.

That's odd. But it makes the case that you should have
subscribed if you are that interested in the magzine's content.
(I assume you _are_ that interested because of the large
number of postings you have made in this thrread.)

> > even though, in the Linn test I describe in the October
> > issue, the 4 of use were sitting in a dedicated listening room,
> > 2 in front, 2 in back. we had no problem hearing differences.
> > Which was why we were doubting our hearing because we
> > weren't expecting to hear any differences and there was no
> > apparent reason for there to be any audible differences.
>
> Just FWIW....test subjects should not know other subjects
> conclusions before selecting to avoid peer influence.
> Sounds like lots of that to go around.

None of use discussed anything with anyone until after the
listening session had concluded. Why would you feel we did?
I really do believe that many of the reading comprehension
problems you exhibit, ScottW, stem from this tendency of
yours to make assumptions that have no basis in what was
written by others. As in this case.

> Anyway....I don't find it surprising that differences can be heard
> between hi-rez and CD with decent equipment...

Many disagree with you. But if you are not surprised
by the results of this tests, why are you carping about
it to such a great extent?

> the most significant variable left in digital audio seems to be the
> manner of filter implementation which is impacted by data rate.

As I wrote a decade ago, all we we will eventually be listening
to are different digital filters :-)

> Pierce made an interesting comment to me on a cross-posted
> thread recently claiming that upsampling A to D at 64xCDrate
> did not require valid data for the extra 63 samples to implement an
> anti-aliasing digital filter as all those 63 samples must only contain
> higher frequency information above the cutoff.

Dick was correct, though if you are going to do that, you might want
to arrange the spectral content so that it is above the eventual
low-pass filter's transition band.You could also use 63 zero-valued
samples between each real sample.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-879B80.17501418092007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
Hey Jenn,

Despite all the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, thanks for
pointing this out. I picked up a copy of Stereophile last night and I
really did enjoy the article.

I haven't bought the magazine in a while, but I'm quite enjoying this
issue in general.

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article

om>,
Jenn > wrote:


> Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views falling by the
> wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's not just an
> abstract concept any longer. I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
> of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives,
> were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana."

Corrected.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> No you said it was an unintentional test which is a poor description
> >> >> as there was clearly an intentional test, just one with unintentional
> >> >> subjects.
> >> >
> >> > From the POV of the subjects, it was an "unintentional test".
> >>
> >> How could they hold such a POV when they had no idea
> >> they were subjects of a test or that a test even was taking place?
> >
> > You'll have to read the piece, I guess.
> >
> >> Did the proctors subsequently confess?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> >> Any serious injuries
> >> in the resulting riot?
> >
> > You must be great at parties.
>
> Jenn likes a good rumble...who knew? :)
> Don't smash that pretty little guitar over anyones head,
> you'll regret it.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves John.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice blanket smear.
> >> >
> >> > Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...
> >>
> >> It's your smear....you wish I would take it lightly?
>
> No answer.

Incorrect; the answer comes just below:

>
> >
> > You have a very low threshold of what a "smear" is.
>
> Yup, I'm not corrupted by moral equivalency or
> over exposure to Arny.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> >> >> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent what I
> >> >> say.
> >> >> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff deserves
> >> >> a pass.
> >> >
> >> > The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING without
> >> > you going off on it.
> >>
> >> I'm sure he could say, "I'm sorry, that was wrong, I shouldn't have."
> >> or any number of similar comments.
> >> So clearly ANYTHING is not correct.
> >>
> >> > At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)
> >>
> >> I have no idea what you're talking and am even less confident
> >> I want to know.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> >> >> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > Whatever.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Nope.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> >> >> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> >> >> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> >> >> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> >> >> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an issue
> >> >> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> >> >> > > but I also don't think
> >> >> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> >> >> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> >> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> >> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
> >> >>
> >> >> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds about
> >> >> > such things.
> >> >>
> >> >> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> >> >> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> >> >> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city that
> >> >> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of bankruptcy.
> >> >> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a meaningless
> >> >> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty ridiculous.
> >> >> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> >> >> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted support
> >> >> on my side.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him just
> >> > before this change of mind,
> >>
> >> That is what I understand.
> >>
> >> http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9664
> >>
> >> > or did he already know that she's gay?
> >>
> >> Considering his emotional breakdown at the news conference
> >> he didn't appear to have come to terms with it yet.
> >
> > Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views
>
> Political view? You saying he espoused his anti-gay marriage
> stance for political purposes when they in fact were not his own
> personal beliefs when he ran for the position?
>
> You realize that this is basically calling him a liar?

You saying that one's political views are held only for political
purposes? Doesn't one hold views on things political just because those
views are what they believe?

>
> > falling by the
> > wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's just an
> > abstract concept any longer.
>
> Is there a key word missing...like "not"?

Yes, I corrected it.

>
> > I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
> > of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives,
> > were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana."
>
> Frankly, I don't really care what our mayor thinks on this issue as he
> has no authority unless he wants to pull a Gavin Newsome.
> But I do question his integrity as any way you
> look at this issue, he hasn't been straight with his constituents.

Why do you believe that? Surely you can see that changes in a person's
circumstances can cause a rethinking on an issue.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-879B80.17501418092007
> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> says...
> > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >
> Hey Jenn,
>
> Despite all the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, thanks for
> pointing this out. I picked up a copy of Stereophile last night and I
> really did enjoy the article.
>
> I haven't bought the magazine in a while, but I'm quite enjoying this
> issue in general.

I just wanted to thank John for some interesting reading and to perhaps
spur on some discussion. This being RAO, I should have realized that
people would use the opportunity to be critical of John without first
reading the piece.

[vlad]

On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
>
> > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>
> > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > it was confusing.
>
> No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> it.
>
> > Not more show testing with large listener groups
> > all breathing and farting in crappy rooms bored to tears
> > by too many seminars, lousy career outlook,
>
> No.
>
> >http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070921/harmon-international-har-buy...
> > (Harmon buyout falling apart)
>
> Thank you for the link. I had heard rumors. A lot of deals
> are collapsing due to the drying-up of large-scale credit.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?

Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
public?

vlad

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> > even though, in the Linn test I describe in the October
> >> > issue, the 4 of use were sitting in a dedicated listening room,
> >> > 2 in front, 2 in back. we had no problem hearing differences.
> >> > Which was why we were doubting our hearing because we
> >> > weren't expecting to hear any differences and there was no
> >> > apparent reason for there to be any audible differences.
> >>
> >> Just FWIW....test subjects should not know other subjects
> >> conclusions before selecting to avoid peer influence.
> >> Sounds like lots of that to go around.
> >
> > None of use discussed anything with anyone until after the
> > listening session had concluded. Why would you feel we did?
>
> Because you were aware the everyone as "we were doubting"
> your hearing.

That was what emerged in the subsequent discussion, ScottW. If
you can remember back that far in the thread, I mentioned that in
response to your question concerning what happened _after_ the
test was over and the moderator informed us we had been taking
part in a listening test. Because we talked after the test carries no
implication that we also talked during the test.

> In any case, peer communication can be subtle
> and does not require overt discussion. Its a knit...

What's a "knit"?

> > I really do believe that many of the reading comprehension
> > problems you exhibit, ScottW, stem from this tendency of
> > yours to make assumptions that have no basis in what was
> > written by others. As in this case.
>
> Actually, it is with comprehension that I recognize the voids
> in your written descriptions of what took place...

But by your own admission,m you have not _read_ my
written descriptions! :-(

Oh well.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > it.
>
> Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?

The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
free on-line archives at www.stereophile.com on October 15.

> Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> public?

That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
to
pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
Vlad?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> >> >> >> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves
> >> >> >> > John.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nice blanket smear.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...
> >> >>
> >> >> It's your smear....you wish I would take it lightly?
> >>
> >> No answer.
> >
> > Incorrect; the answer comes just below:
>
> and this answers the question how?

I didn't want to answer a question based on a fallacy.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > You have a very low threshold of what a "smear" is.
> >>
> >> Yup, I'm not corrupted by moral equivalency or
> >> over exposure to Arny.
> >
> > I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> I'm referring to your Arny made me do it excuse with Vlad.

Perhaps if you read it again and think hard about it you'll understand
the point I was making to Vlad. Here's a clue: Why would Vlad accuse
of of something that his ally Arny had just done, about which Vlad said
nothing?

>
> >
> >> >> >> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> >> >> >> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent what I
> >> >> >> say.
> >> >> >> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff
> >> >> >> deserves
> >> >> >> a pass.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING without
> >> >> > you going off on it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sure he could say, "I'm sorry, that was wrong, I shouldn't have."
> >> >> or any number of similar comments.
> >> >> So clearly ANYTHING is not correct.
> >> >>
> >> >> > At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no idea what you're talking and am even less confident
> >> >> I want to know.
> >> >
> >> > OK.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> >> >> >> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > > Whatever.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Nope.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> >> >> >> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> >> >> >> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> >> >> >> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> >> >> >> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an
> >> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> >> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> >> >> >> > > but I also don't think
> >> >> >> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> >> >> >> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> >> >> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> >> >> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds
> >> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> > such things.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> >> >> >> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> >> >> >> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city that
> >> >> >> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of
> >> >> >> bankruptcy.
> >> >> >> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a meaningless
> >> >> >> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty ridiculous.
> >> >> >> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> >> >> >> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted support
> >> >> >> on my side.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him just
> >> >> > before this change of mind,
> >> >>
> >> >> That is what I understand.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9664
> >> >>
> >> >> > or did he already know that she's gay?
> >> >>
> >> >> Considering his emotional breakdown at the news conference
> >> >> he didn't appear to have come to terms with it yet.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views
> >>
> >> Political view? You saying he espoused his anti-gay marriage
> >> stance for political purposes when they in fact were not his own
> >> personal beliefs when he ran for the position?
> >>
> >> You realize that this is basically calling him a liar?
> >
> > You saying that one's political views are held only for political
> > purposes?
>
> No, I'm not. You're the one who classified his "view" as
> a political one. What does that mean?

See below.

>
> > Doesn't one hold views on things political just because those
> > views are what they believe?
>
> Then what relevance is the "political" classification of his view?
> Apparently none...so we're back to a guy changing his view
> based on personal interests.

Scott, we speaking of the difference between genuinely holding a view on
a political issue and opportunistically stating a view for political
reasons. Do you see the difference?

>
> >
> >>
> >> > falling by the
> >> > wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's just an
> >> > abstract concept any longer.
> >>
> >> Is there a key word missing...like "not"?
> >
> > Yes, I corrected it.
> >
> >>
> >> > I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
> >> > of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives,
> >> > were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana."
> >>
> >> Frankly, I don't really care what our mayor thinks on this issue as he
> >> has no authority unless he wants to pull a Gavin Newsome.
> >> But I do question his integrity as any way you
> >> look at this issue, he hasn't been straight with his constituents.
> >
> > Why do you believe that? Surely you can see that changes in a person's
> > circumstances can cause a rethinking on an issue.
>
> Doesn't he have an obligation to his constituents who elected him to
> uphold his campaign commitments in spite of his personal change
> of beliefs?

An interesting and valid question, worth thinking about.

> I have no problem with his change of personal beliefs,
> but I have a big problem with him reversing his official position as
> Mayor. He should veto the thing as promised and then run
> on the platform that he'll support it next term.
>
> The "I changed my mind" tune of politicians is undermining the
> trust of Americans in their gov't.

On the other hand, the "He's a flipflopper!" attitude seems to discount
maturing thought and changing circumstances.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sep 21, 3:44 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> >> > In article . com>,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 2:14 pm, John Atkinson
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > > > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could
> >> >> > > > > > > "unintentionally"
> >> >> > > > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the
> >> >> > > > > > > ability
> >> >> > > > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> >> >> > > > > it was confusing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> >> >> > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> >> >> > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> >> >> > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> >> >> > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> >> >> > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I wonder how many appreciated that deception.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What deception?
> >> >>
> >> >> The intentional deception required to create unintentional subjects.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > I see. Well, it's my impression that these guys are all friends.
> >>
> >> This is like discovery in a civil case....now we know this "test"
> >> couldn't have been a sampling of the normal population.
> >> Not using a bunch of leftie nutter friends of Atkinson.
> >> I suggest sane subjects for future tests.
> >
> > See, there you go...
>
> Just fulfilling prophecy...
>
> >
> >>
> >> Tell me at least this time he actually published the raw
> >> data so his conclusions can be checked for validity.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > This was not that formal a test.
>
> This is becoming a pattern. Conclusions without
> data....again. Stereophile seems to be catering to
> the lowest common denominator.

Once you've read the piece, we can discuss data collection.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > On Sep 21, 11:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > even though, in the Linn test I describe in the October
> >> >> > issue, the 4 of use were sitting in a dedicated listening room,
> >> >> > 2 in front, 2 in back. we had no problem hearing differences.
> >> >> > Which was why we were doubting our hearing because we
> >> >> > weren't expecting to hear any differences and there was no
> >> >> > apparent reason for there to be any audible differences.
> >> >>
> >> >> Just FWIW....test subjects should not know other subjects
> >> >> conclusions before selecting to avoid peer influence.
> >> >> Sounds like lots of that to go around.
> >> >
> >> > None of use discussed anything with anyone until after the
> >> > listening session had concluded. Why would you feel we did?
> >>
> >> Because you were aware the everyone as "we were doubting"
> >> your hearing.
> >
> > That was what emerged in the subsequent discussion, ScottW. If
> > you can remember back that far in the thread, I mentioned that in
> > response to your question concerning what happened _after_ the
> > test was over and the moderator informed us we had been taking
> > part in a listening test.
>
> Really...so you all sat quietly, not revealing to each other your
> selections...yet making selections while not know you
> were in a test..

There were no "selections" to be made. Read the piece, then you can
discuss it intelligently.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > I will find it interesting how someone could "unintentionally"
> > > > > create a valid test more than I am interested in the ability
> > > > > to differentiate MP3, redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >
> > > > No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >
> > > Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> > > it was confusing.
> >
> > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > it.
> >
> > > Not more show testing with large listener groups
> > > all breathing and farting in crappy rooms bored to tears
> > > by too many seminars, lousy career outlook,
> >
> > No.
> >
> > >http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070921/harmon-international-har-buy...
> > > (Harmon buyout falling apart)
> >
> > Thank you for the link. I had heard rumors. A lot of deals
> > are collapsing due to the drying-up of large-scale credit.
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
>
> Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> public?
>
> vlad

Am I not "the public"?

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > public?

> That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> to pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact, Vlad?

More elitism™ from the upper crust. Thnak's John for, amditting Aktonsin
that its like you eckpect everybody to applaud your crousaid against
sicccicnnece and pay for the privvaledge Jhon. Thats LOl. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> There were no "selections" to be made. Read the piece, then you can
> discuss it intelligently.

Scottie's "motor" is already racing so hard that it's propelled him to
the finish line. I'm surprised you can't hear the high-pitched whining
of an overdriven "motor" -- from where I sit, it's almost deafening.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Perhaps if you read it again and think hard about it you'll understand
> the point I was making to Vlad. Here's a clue: Why would Vlad accuse
> of of something that his ally Arny had just done, about which Vlad said
> nothing?

Nice try at battering Scottie's dense armor of stupidity with a bit of
straightforward reasoning. ;-)

BTW, you've just given vladborg's affiliation with the Krooborg the kiss
of death. The only thing Arnii hates worse than Stereophile is having
"allies" who agree with him. ;-) ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 2:11 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Sep 22, 12:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> > None of use discussed anything with anyone until after the
> >> > listening session had concluded. Why would you feel we did?
>
> >> Because you were aware the everyone as "we were doubting"
> >> your hearing.
>
> > That was what emerged in the subsequent discussion, ScottW. If
> > you can remember back that far in the thread, I mentioned that in
> > response to your question concerning what happened _after_ the
> > test was over and the moderator informed us we had been taking
> > part in a listening test.
>
> Really...so you all sat quietly, not revealing to each other your
> selections...

That is correct. You really need to read the article, ScottW. I
believe Malcolm Hawksford also describes this test in the
latest Hi-Fi World, if you prefer that magazine to Stereophile.
(Malcolm was one of the listeners in the session I attended,
along with engineer George Massenberg and Arcam's John
Dawson, none of whom are "left-wing nutters," as you
assumed in another recent posting.)

> In any case a very odd scenario indeed.

It _was_ odd, which is why I wrote about it in the October
Stereophile. It was a very elegantly designed test in
that there was no way for the listeners to know they
were taking part in a test until after the session had
ended.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Sep, 18:02, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
Stereophile seems to be catering to
> the lowest common denominator.
>

Oh no, they're shilling Sanyo again!

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 3:27 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> More elitism™ from the upper crust. Thnak's John for, amditting Aktonsin
> that its like you eckpect everybody to applaud your crousaid against
> sicccicnnece and pay for the privvaledge Jhon. Thats LOl. ;-)

Been there, done that, George. LoTS! ;-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 22 Sep, 18:21, "ScottW" > wrote:


>
> > good idea!
> > let's test stereo equipment on people
> > who don't give a rat's ass about music and/or good sound.
>
> Are you volunteering? :)
>

i hardly have any lp's left.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 22 Sep, 18:02, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> Stereophile seems to be catering to
> > the lowest common denominator.
> >
>
> Oh no, they're shilling Sanyo again!

lol Sanyo made my first computer. I was thinking about that machine
just the other day and reflecting on how far (in that way) we have come
in a fairly short time.

[vlad]

On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > it.
>
> > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
>
> The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comon October 15.
>
> > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > public?
>
> That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> to
> pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> Vlad?
>

I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.

In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
the text of the article is not freely available to all participants of
discussion. At least, for people like me who are forced to wait for
three weeks you (or Jennifer) could put quotes from the text proving
your statements about "unintentional" listening test.

But you did not do it so far. So I think that this article will not
stand a scrutiny of knowleadgable people and you know that. So you are
doing your business of fooling the public as usual.

But no doubts,the article is well written :-)

vlad

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > > it.
> >
> > > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
> >
> > The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> > widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> > free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comon October 15.
> >
> > > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > > public?
> >
> > That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> > article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> > to
> > pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> > free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> > Vlad?
> >
>
> I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
> long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
> Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.
>
> In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
> the text of the article is not freely available to all participants of
> discussion.

Vlad, I simply complimented John on the article. Then several people
proceeded to guess about the contents of it. I suggest that if anyone
wishes to make intelligent comments on it, they read it first.

[Jenn]

On Sep 22, 1:55 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
>
> >> >> >> >> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it involves
> >> >> >> >> > John.
>
> >> >> >> >> Nice blanket smear.
>
> >> >> >> > Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...
>
> >> >> >> It's your smear....you wish I would take it lightly?
>
> >> >> No answer.
>
> >> > Incorrect; the answer comes just below:
>
> >> and this answers the question how?
>
> > I didn't want to answer a question based on a fallacy.
>
> So you were lying when the comes below....
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > You have a very low threshold of what a "smear" is.
>
> >> >> Yup, I'm not corrupted by moral equivalency or
> >> >> over exposure to Arny.
>
> >> > I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> >> I'm referring to your Arny made me do it excuse with Vlad.
>
> > Perhaps if you read it again and think hard about it you'll understand
> > the point I was making to Vlad. Here's a clue: Why would Vlad accuse
> > of of something that his ally Arny had just done,
>
> More missing words?

Wow, Scott is pointing out when I make posting mistakes. OK...

> Declaring alliances where there are none is simply a cheap attempt
> at guilt by association. It's middiot & arny and beneath you.

You haven't noticed Vlad's posting pattern?

>
> > about which Vlad said
> > nothing?
>
> I suggest you treat people as individuals.

LOL Now THAT'S rich!

>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> >> >> >> >> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent what I
> >> >> >> >> say.
> >> >> >> >> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff
> >> >> >> >> deserves
> >> >> >> >> a pass.
>
> >> >> >> > The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING without
> >> >> >> > you going off on it.
>
> >> >> >> I'm sure he could say, "I'm sorry, that was wrong, I shouldn't have."
> >> >> >> or any number of similar comments.
> >> >> >> So clearly ANYTHING is not correct.
>
> >> >> >> > At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)
>
> >> >> >> I have no idea what you're talking and am even less confident
> >> >> >> I want to know.
>
> >> >> > OK.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> >> >> >> >> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that old.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > Whatever.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Nope.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> >> >> >> >> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> >> >> >> >> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of integrity
> >> >> >> >> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> >> >> >> >> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
>
> >> >> >> >> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is an
> >> >> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> >> >> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time on it
> >> >> >> >> > > but I also don't think
> >> >> >> >> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> >> >> >> >> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to deny
> >> >> >> >> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but as
> >> >> >> >> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in that?
>
> >> >> >> >> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate here:
>
> >> >> >> >>http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
>
> >> >> >> >> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their minds
> >> >> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> >> > such things.
>
> >> >> >> >> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> >> >> >> >> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> >> >> >> >> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city that
> >> >> >> >> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of
> >> >> >> >> bankruptcy.
> >> >> >> >> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a meaningless
> >> >> >> >> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty ridiculous.
> >> >> >> >> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> >> >> >> >> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted support
> >> >> >> >> on my side.
>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
>
> >> >> >> > It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him just
> >> >> >> > before this change of mind,
>
> >> >> >> That is what I understand.
>
> >> >> >>http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9664
>
> >> >> >> > or did he already know that she's gay?
>
> >> >> >> Considering his emotional breakdown at the news conference
> >> >> >> he didn't appear to have come to terms with it yet.
>
> >> >> > Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views
>
> >> >> Political view? You saying he espoused his anti-gay marriage
> >> >> stance for political purposes when they in fact were not his own
> >> >> personal beliefs when he ran for the position?
>
> >> >> You realize that this is basically calling him a liar?
>
> >> > You saying that one's political views are held only for political
> >> > purposes?
>
> >> No, I'm not. You're the one who classified his "view" as
> >> a political one. What does that mean?
>
> > See below.
>
> >> > Doesn't one hold views on things political just because those
> >> > views are what they believe?
>
> >> Then what relevance is the "political" classification of his view?
> >> Apparently none...so we're back to a guy changing his view
> >> based on personal interests.
>
> > Scott, we're speaking of the difference between genuinely holding a view on
> > a political issue and opportunistically stating a view for political
> > reasons. Do you see the difference?
>
> Yes. And I don't see how the opportunistic view you bestow
> on Sanders reflects positively on his integrity.

I don't see how changing his mind reflects negitively on his
integrity.
What opportunistic view?


>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > falling by the
> >> >> > wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's just an
> >> >> > abstract concept any longer.
>
> >> >> Is there a key word missing...like "not"?
>
> >> > Yes, I corrected it.
>
> >> >> > I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
> >> >> > of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very lives,
> >> >> > were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana."
>
> >> >> Frankly, I don't really care what our mayor thinks on this issue as he
> >> >> has no authority unless he wants to pull a Gavin Newsome.
> >> >> But I do question his integrity as any way you
> >> >> look at this issue, he hasn't been straight with his constituents.
>
> >> > Why do you believe that? Surely you can see that changes in a person's
> >> > circumstances can cause a rethinking on an issue.
>
> >> Doesn't he have an obligation to his constituents who elected him to
> >> uphold his campaign commitments in spite of his personal change
> >> of beliefs?
>
> > An interesting and valid question, worth thinking about.
>
> Kind of what Romney says he did on abortion.
> He was pro-life but accepted responsibility for representing
> an overwhelming pro-choice constituency.
> Honesty can work, deception IMO...can't.
>
>
>
> >> I have no problem with his change of personal beliefs,
> >> but I have a big problem with him reversing his official position as
> >> Mayor. He should veto the thing as promised and then run
> >> on the platform that he'll support it next term.
>
> >> The "I changed my mind" tune of politicians is undermining the
> >> trust of Americans in their gov't.
>
> > On the other hand, the "He's a flipflopper!" attitude seems to discount
> > maturing thought and changing circumstances.
>
> Sure, there are always consequences, can't please everyone.
> But opportunistic lying during a campaign shouldn't please anyone
> including the beneficiaries of the lie.

Where did he lie?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> On Sep 22, 1:55 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > om...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > >>.com
> > >> ...
> > >> >> >> >> > Read the piece before you become so critical.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> I'm not criticizing the piece....yet.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > Oh wait. You won't do that because you can't when it
> > >> >> >> >> > involves
> > >> >> >> >> > John.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> Nice blanket smear.
> >
> > >> >> >> > Wow, speaking of getting ones panties in a wad...
> >
> > >> >> >> It's your smear....you wish I would take it lightly?
> >
> > >> >> No answer.
> >
> > >> > Incorrect; the answer comes just below:
> >
> > >> and this answers the question how?
> >
> > > I didn't want to answer a question based on a fallacy.
> >
> > So you were lying when the comes below....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> >> > You have a very low threshold of what a "smear" is.
> >
> > >> >> Yup, I'm not corrupted by moral equivalency or
> > >> >> over exposure to Arny.
> >
> > >> > I have no idea what you're talking about.
> >
> > >> I'm referring to your Arny made me do it excuse with Vlad.
> >
> > > Perhaps if you read it again and think hard about it you'll understand
> > > the point I was making to Vlad. Here's a clue: Why would Vlad accuse
> > > of of something that his ally Arny had just done,
> >
> > More missing words?
>
> :Wow, Scott is pointing out when I make posting mistakes. OK...
>
> Just trying to get your meaning. Read that sentence to someone
> and see if it makes sense.
>
> > Declaring alliances where there are none is simply a cheap attempt
> > at guilt by association. It's middiot & arny and beneath you.
>
> :You haven't noticed Vlad's posting pattern?
>
> You haven't notice middiots and sshhitheads?
>
> >
> > > about which Vlad said
> > > nothing?
> >
> > I suggest you treat people as individuals.
>
> :LOL Now THAT'S rich!
>
> Sigh....you're so unaware of yourself at times.
>
> >
> > >> >> >> >> Yes, I am critical of overt liars especially
> > >> >> >> >> when they knowingly, willfully and intentionally misrepresent
> > >> >> >> >> what
> > >> >> >> >> I
> > >> >> >> >> say.
> > >> >> >> >> But thats just me. The rest of you seem to think that stuff
> > >> >> >> >> deserves
> > >> >> >> >> a pass.
> >
> > >> >> >> > The empirical evidence is strong that John can't say ANYTHING
> > >> >> >> > without
> > >> >> >> > you going off on it.
> >
> > >> >> >> I'm sure he could say, "I'm sorry, that was wrong, I shouldn't
> > >> >> >> have."
> > >> >> >> or any number of similar comments.
> > >> >> >> So clearly ANYTHING is not correct.
> >
> > >> >> >> > At least Arny has the PowerPoint "excuse"! ;-)
> >
> > >> >> >> I have no idea what you're talking and am even less confident
> > >> >> >> I want to know.
> >
> > >> >> > OK.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > Oh....it must be have evolved...or was it the result
> > >> >> >> >> > > of unintentional intelligent design?
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > > > You seem to be losing it....or lost it.....or both.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > > > BTW...is Jerry Sanders your Dad? He doesn't look that
> > >> >> >> >> > > > > old.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > > Whatever.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > So I guess you're familiar with the issue.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > Nope.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > So maybe you can help me with this..
> > >> >> >> >> > > All the local libs are coming out in support of Sanders
> > >> >> >> >> > > claiming he did the right thing and it takes a man of
> > >> >> >> >> > > integrity
> > >> >> >> >> > > to do what he did blah blah blah....
> > >> >> >> >> > > (while the right is calling for him to step down).
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > > I don't get it. Personally I don't think gay marriage is
> > >> >> >> >> > > an
> > >> >> >> >> > > issue
> > >> >> >> >> > > for the mayor and he and the city council are wasting time
> > >> >> >> >> > > on
> > >> >> >> >> > > it
> > >> >> >> >> > > but I also don't think
> > >> >> >> >> > > he's showing any integrity whatsoever.
> > >> >> >> >> > > I simply don't respect a man who felt it appropriate to
> > >> >> >> >> > > deny
> > >> >> >> >> > > gay marriage as long as it was someone elses daughter, but
> > >> >> >> >> > > as
> > >> >> >> >> > > soon as its his own...he flips. Where is the integrity in
> > >> >> >> >> > > that?
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > I don't know the issue, but just based on what you indicate
> > >> >> >> >> > here:
> >
> > >> >> >> >>http://www.kpbs.org/blogs/offmic/2007/09/20/jerry-sanders/
> >
> > >> >> >> >> > When the issue is brought home, people often change their
> > >> >> >> >> > minds
> > >> >> >> >> > about
> > >> >> >> >> > such things.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> Seems as though he needed to do some serious soul searching
> > >> >> >> >> before voicing his position in his initial campaign.
> > >> >> >> >> This is going to be such a distraction in a campaign for a city
> > >> >> >> >> that
> > >> >> >> >> is facing many serious issues and teeters on the brink of
> > >> >> >> >> bankruptcy.
> > >> >> >> >> I just think it was/is silly to waste so much time on a
> > >> >> >> >> meaningless
> > >> >> >> >> gesture.....and the public cry at the podium was pretty
> > >> >> >> >> ridiculous.
> > >> >> >> >> My daughter is a lesbian boo hoo hoo...
> > >> >> >> >> If I supported gay marriage, I wouldn't want such twisted
> > >> >> >> >> support
> > >> >> >> >> on my side.
> >
> > >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >
> > >> >> >> > It's unclear from the piece: did the daughter come out to him
> > >> >> >> > just
> > >> >> >> > before this change of mind,
> >
> > >> >> >> That is what I understand.
> >
> > >> >> >>http://www.kpbs.org/news/local;id=9664
> >
> > >> >> >> > or did he already know that she's gay?
> >
> > >> >> >> Considering his emotional breakdown at the news conference
> > >> >> >> he didn't appear to have come to terms with it yet.
> >
> > >> >> > Sounds like the fairly typical story of political views
> >
> > >> >> Political view? You saying he espoused his anti-gay marriage
> > >> >> stance for political purposes when they in fact were not his own
> > >> >> personal beliefs when he ran for the position?
> >
> > >> >> You realize that this is basically calling him a liar?
> >
> > >> > You saying that one's political views are held only for political
> > >> > purposes?
> >
> > >> No, I'm not. You're the one who classified his "view" as
> > >> a political one. What does that mean?
> >
> > > See below.
> >
> > >> > Doesn't one hold views on things political just because those
> > >> > views are what they believe?
> >
> > >> Then what relevance is the "political" classification of his view?
> > >> Apparently none...so we're back to a guy changing his view
> > >> based on personal interests.
> >
> > > Scott, we're speaking of the difference between genuinely holding a view
> > > on
> > > a political issue and opportunistically stating a view for political
> > > reasons. Do you see the difference?
> >
> > Yes. And I don't see how the opportunistic view you bestow
> > on Sanders reflects positively on his integrity.
>
> :I don't see how changing his mind reflects negitively on his
> : integrity.
>
> Not just his mind, his position and his veto.
>
> :What opportunistic view?
>
> OMG...seriously, see a neurologist.

See ya

>
> >
> >
> > >> >> > falling by the
> > >> >> > wayside when this issue is brought to a family. Suddenly it's just
> > >> >> > an
> > >> >> > abstract concept any longer.
> >
> > >> >> Is there a key word missing...like "not"?
> >
> > >> > Yes, I corrected it.
> >
> > >> >> > I like his statement: "I couldn¹t look any
> > >> >> > of them in the face and tell them their relationship, their very
> > >> >> > lives,
> > >> >> > were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife,
> > >> >> > Rana."
> >
> > >> >> Frankly, I don't really care what our mayor thinks on this issue as
> > >> >> he
> > >> >> has no authority unless he wants to pull a Gavin Newsome.
> > >> >> But I do question his integrity as any way you
> > >> >> look at this issue, he hasn't been straight with his constituents.
> >
> > >> > Why do you believe that? Surely you can see that changes in a
> > >> > person's
> > >> > circumstances can cause a rethinking on an issue.
> >
> > >> Doesn't he have an obligation to his constituents who elected him to
> > >> uphold his campaign commitments in spite of his personal change
> > >> of beliefs?
> >
> > > An interesting and valid question, worth thinking about.
> >
> > Kind of what Romney says he did on abortion.
> > He was pro-life but accepted responsibility for representing
> > an overwhelming pro-choice constituency.
> > Honesty can work, deception IMO...can't.
> >
> >
> >
> > >> I have no problem with his change of personal beliefs,
> > >> but I have a big problem with him reversing his official position as
> > >> Mayor. He should veto the thing as promised and then run
> > >> on the platform that he'll support it next term.
> >
> > >> The "I changed my mind" tune of politicians is undermining the
> > >> trust of Americans in their gov't.
> >
> > > On the other hand, the "He's a flipflopper!" attitude seems to discount
> > > maturing thought and changing circumstances.
> >
> > Sure, there are always consequences, can't please everyone.
> > But opportunistic lying during a campaign shouldn't please anyone
> > including the beneficiaries of the lie.
>
> :Where did he lie?
>
> Aren't all opportunistic political positions lies?
>
> ScottW

[vlad]

On Sep 22, 2:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> > > > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > > > it.
>
> > > > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
>
> > > The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> > > widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> > > free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comonOctober 15.
>
> > > > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > > > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > > > public?
>
> > > That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> > > article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> > > to
> > > pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> > > free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> > > Vlad?
>
> > I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
> > long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
> > Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.
>
> > In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
> > the text of the article is not freely available to all participants of
> > discussion.
>
> Vlad, I simply complimented John on the article.

As usual you are distorting the facts. If you would simply compliment
him then there would be nothing to talk about.

However almost immediately you said:

"It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files."

So you did not "simply complimented John on the article". Do you see
the difference?

You opened can of worms with it. People have questions - was it a
properly designed test? was outcome positive or negative?, etc. etc.

The best way would be to quote article (it will be public, anyway) to
answer. But you and John are playing games, instead of a straight
answer. I understand JA's motivations, his livelihood depends on
fooling the public. What are your motivations?

Did you ever think about career of a politician? You would be good at
it :-)

> Then several people
> proceeded to guess about the contents of it. I suggest that if anyone
> wishes to make intelligent comments on it, they read it first.

It would be better if you give us, peons, direct quote, proving you
point. And, please, don't tell me that you don't have a point :-)

vlad

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> [vladborg], I simply complimented John on the article. Then several people
> proceeded to guess about the contents of it. I suggest that if anyone
> wishes to make intelligent comments on it, they read it first.

I have to say that's quite unfair of you, Jenn. The 'borgs only experience
audio equipment through thought experiments. They rely on imaginary
"tests" of imaginary "equipment" for the foundation of their religion. For
you to suggest that actual, real-life sampling of the unknown is needed
is, frankly speaking, elitist and discriminatory. For shame.

[George M. Middius]

vladborg whined:

> > [vladborg], I simply complimented John on the article.

> As usual you are distorting the facts. If you would simply compliment
> him then there would be nothing to talk about.

Here's what Jenn originally posted:

Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

I suppose the additional text that irritates you is in there somewhere,
but I can't find it. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point it out. TIA.


P.S. What on earth is wrong with you, vladborg?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > > > > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
> >
> > > > The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> > > > widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> > > > free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comonOctober 15.
> >
> > > > > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > > > > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > > > > public?
> >
> > > > That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> > > > article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> > > > to
> > > > pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> > > > free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> > > > Vlad?
> >
> > > I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
> > > long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
> > > Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.
> >
> > > In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
> > > the text of the article is not freely available to all participants of
> > > discussion.
> >
> > Vlad, I simply complimented John on the article.
>
> As usual you are distorting the facts.

LOL "As usual"? A baseless statement.

> If you would simply compliment
> him then there would be nothing to talk about.
>
> However almost immediately you said:
>
> "It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> differences in digital files."

Yes, I said that in answer to a question, and the statement is
absolutely true.

>
> So you did not "simply complimented John on the article". Do you see
> the difference?
>
> You opened can of worms with it.

You left out a word. Scott will be appalled.

> People have questions - was it a
> properly designed test? was outcome positive or negative?, etc. etc.
>
> The best way would be to quote article (it will be public, anyway) to
> answer. But you and John are playing games, instead of a straight
> answer. I understand JA's motivations, his livelihood depends on
> fooling the public.

No, his livelihood depends on his magazine selling.

> What are your motivations?

I stated at the time that I didn't have time to type in long quotes.
Since people are inpatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
is, here it is in a nutshell:
Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps. Everyone heard the difference. They
didn't know they were being "tested".

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of trust.
>>>>> At some point, you're always trusting someone anyway.
>>>>> I can see why you might want to think all the reviewers
>>>>> would stoop to cheating the system......but I'm willing
>>>>> to give 'em a chance.
>>>>>
>>>>> All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
>>>>> software that store results over the web.
>>>>> All they have to do is hook it up, train, let the PC
>>>>> make the random selections without cheating, and
>>>>> choose. The fact that this is beyond your
>>>>> comprehension is not surprising.
>>>>>
>>>>> ScottW
>>>>
>>>> There's something wrong with these ideas you're proposing
>>>> above. I'd like to expound on it and exchange views with you
>>>
>>> Go ahead.
>>
>> Okey.
>>
>> While the reviewer is listening to your proposed simple DBT
>> as above, when would the reviewer determine whether the sound
>> is different or not while listening critically ?
>
>
> Odd question.....anyway, when is up to the subject.


Huh ? What do you mean by -- when it is up to the subject?
Suppose the subject suddendy felt an urge to have his toenails
clipped and demanding during the same time that you perform
strip dance atop the coffee table while listening and dancing to
the music of Shakira. Would this be alright under your propose
simple DBT ? What if the subject refuse to proceed further
unless you do so.


So, *when* does the reviewer decide whether the sound is different
or not while listening critically ?



> A significant advantage IMO over a time limited proctored test.


IF it has these significant advantage then, HOW does the reviewer
decide whether the sound is different or not while listening critically ?
Okey ?


> ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com

>No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.

So much for trying to make sense of Jen's post.

> My
> point was that as the knowledge that a listener is taking
> part in a test changes the way he listens -- a point that
> Arny Krueger and I agree on --

Note that Atkinson deceptively adds the following opinion, which is not
mine:

> more relevant test results
> could be gotten if the listeners are not aware they are
> being tested.

Just another one of those whines that inventive audiophiles have come up
with after failing to do what they though would be easy to do.

> This was the case with the tests I discuss
> in the October issue's editorial leader, which were
> designed by Phillips Hobbs of Linn and carried out at
> Queen Mary University in London at the recent AES
> Conference.

Hopefully Atkinson can quote Hobbs more accurately than he has quoted me.

[vlad]

On Sep 22, 5:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
>
>
>
> vlad > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 2:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article om>,
>
> > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> > > > > > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
>
> > > > > The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> > > > > widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> > > > > free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comonOctober15.
>
> > > > > > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > > > > > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > > > > > public?
>
> > > > > That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> > > > > article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't wish
> > > > > to
> > > > > pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> > > > > free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> > > > > Vlad?
>
> > > > I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
> > > > long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
> > > > Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.
>
> > > > In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
> > > > the text of the article is not freely available to all participants of
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > Vlad, I simply complimented John on the article.
>
> > As usual you are distorting the facts.
>
> LOL "As usual"? A baseless statement.

Not "baseless". You did not read the rest of the post.

>
> > If you would simply compliment
> > him then there would be nothing to talk about.
>
> > However almost immediately you said:
>
> > "It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > differences in digital files."
>
> Yes, I said that in answer to a question, and the statement is
> absolutely true.
>
>
>
> > So you did not "simply complimented John on the article". Do you see
> > the difference?
>
> > You opened can of worms with it.
>
> You left out a word. Scott will be appalled.
>
> > People have questions - was it a
> > properly designed test? was outcome positive or negative?, etc. etc.
>
> > The best way would be to quote article (it will be public, anyway) to
> > answer. But you and John are playing games, instead of a straight
> > answer. I understand JA's motivations, his livelihood depends on
> > fooling the public.
>
> No, his livelihood depends on his magazine selling.

This magazine is pushing overpriced gear to the public that does not
know better. Manufacturers of these "miraculous" products are laughing
all that way to the bank.

>
> > What are your motivations?
>
> I stated at the time that I didn't have time to type in long quotes.
> Since people are inpatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> is, here it is in a nutshell:
> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps. Everyone heard the difference. They
> didn't know they were being "tested".

Eventually we can have a glimps at the mistery. Let me summarize it:

- they listened different pieces of music,
- these pieces were probably mastered differently, may be erven by
different people,
- sound levels were not matched (or were they?).

You consider it a 'test'? Does not surprise me, that they heard
differences. There were more then one variable changed. But you want
to believe that it is a difference in coding, because it was well
written :-)

Is not it an example of fooling the public?

My regards to JA for masterful job.

vlad

[Jenn]

In article om>,
vlad > wrote:

> On Sep 22, 5:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article om>,
> >
> >
> >
> > vlad > wrote:
> > > On Sep 22, 2:50 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article om>,
> >
> > > > vlad > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 22, 10:04 am, John Atkinson
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 22, 1:54 pm, vlad > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Sep 21, 1:14 pm, John Atkinson
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > > > > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > > > > > > > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > > > > > > > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > > > > > > > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > > > > > > > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > > > > > > > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > > > > > > > You really do need to read the article before you criticize
> > > > > > > > it.
> >
> > > > > > > Then publish it here. Or is it a state secret now?
> >
> > > > > > The article being discussed is in the October issue of Stereophile,
> > > > > > widely available on US newsstands. It will be reprinted in the
> > > > > > free on-line archives atwww.stereophile.comonOctober15.
> >
> > > > > > > Or is it more convenient for you and Jennifer to make all kind of
> > > > > > > innuendos refering to some writings that are not available to the
> > > > > > > public?
> >
> > > > > > That's some giant sense of entitlement you have there, Vlad. The
> > > > > > article _is_ available to the public. It's just that if you don't
> > > > > > wish
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > pay for it, you have to wait another 3 weeks before you can read it
> > > > > > free of charge. Why do you have such difficulty grasping that fact,
> > > > > > Vlad?
> >
> > > > > I have no difficulty with grasping this fact. As I stated before as
> > > > > long as Stereophile employs such technical illiterates as Michael
> > > > > Fremer it is not worth my money to spend on it.
> >
> > > > > In all this discussion you and Jennifer are exploiting the fact that
> > > > > the text of the article is not freely available to all participants
> > > > > of
> > > > > discussion.
> >
> > > > Vlad, I simply complimented John on the article.
> >
> > > As usual you are distorting the facts.
> >
> > LOL "As usual"? A baseless statement.
>
> Not "baseless". You did not read the rest of the post.

Yes, I did. How does it indicate that I usually distort facts?

>
> >
> > > If you would simply compliment
> > > him then there would be nothing to talk about.
> >
> > > However almost immediately you said:
> >
> > > "It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
> > > differences in digital files."
> >
> > Yes, I said that in answer to a question, and the statement is
> > absolutely true.
> >
> >
> >
> > > So you did not "simply complimented John on the article". Do you see
> > > the difference?
> >
> > > You opened can of worms with it.
> >
> > You left out a word. Scott will be appalled.
> >
> > > People have questions - was it a
> > > properly designed test? was outcome positive or negative?, etc. etc.
> >
> > > The best way would be to quote article (it will be public, anyway) to
> > > answer. But you and John are playing games, instead of a straight
> > > answer. I understand JA's motivations, his livelihood depends on
> > > fooling the public.
> >
> > No, his livelihood depends on his magazine selling.
>
> This magazine is pushing overpriced gear to the public that does not
> know better. Manufacturers of these "miraculous" products are laughing
> all that way to the bank.

Thanks for your opinion. Not everyone shares it, obviously.

>
> >
> > > What are your motivations?
> >
> > I stated at the time that I didn't have time to type in long quotes.
> > Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> > is, here it is in a nutshell:
> > Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> > of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> > chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> > chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> > Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> > 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps. Everyone heard the difference. They
> > didn't know they were being "tested".
>
> Eventually we can have a glimps at the mistery. Let me summarize it:
>
> - they listened different pieces of music,
> - these pieces were probably mastered differently, may be erven by
> different people,

It doesn't appear so.

> - sound levels were not matched (or were they?).

They are different movements, Vlad.

>
> You consider it a 'test'? Does not surprise me, that they heard
> differences. There were more then one variable changed.

You presume that, but you don't know that, do you? Why don't you ask
John, or wait to read the article?

[Jenn]

On Sep 22, 4:17 pm, vlad > wrote:
> peons

What is your implication, Vlad?

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 9:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in oglegroups.com
> > My point was that as the knowledge that a listener is taking
> > part in a test changes the way he listens...

This was the whole point of the test: it was designed so
that the listeners did not know that they were taking part
in a listening test.

> > -- a point that Arny Krueger and I agree on --
>
> Note that Atkinson deceptively adds the following opinion,
> which is not mine

There is no implication that it _is_ your opinion, Mr. Krueger.
The reference to you agreement with me in the parenthetical
clause above clearly refers to the fact that a listener knowing
he is taking part in a test alters his perceptions, not to
anything that follows. You have stated this on r.a.o. many
times; I thought fair to acknowledge that fact.

> > more relevant test results could be gotten if the listeners
> > are not aware they are being tested.

This is clearly my opinion. Note the double carats, and
remember that in English grammar, parenthetical clauses
refer to, clarify, or expand on what comes before them, not
to what follows.

> > This was the case with the tests I discuss
> > in the October issue's editorial leader, which were
> > designed by Phillips Hobbs of Linn and carried out at
> > Queen Mary University in London at the recent AES
> > Conference.
>
> Hopefully Atkinson can quote Hobbs more accurately than
> he has quoted me.

I dod quote you accurately, Mr. Krueger and Philip did indeed
confirm that my description of his test procedure was correct.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article om>,
> Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> is, here it is in a nutshell:
> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.

That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood is that the
source material for the test was that the _same_ original recording,
a DSD-encoded master, was used for all the transcoded versions.
The four passages were sequential on the master and musically
identical. When Philip burned the DVD-A for the test, he
retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions back to 88.2kHz
so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate or
reconstruction filter when the disc was played back. Thus the
only reason for there being any audible differences was the loss
of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An elegant test.

> Everyone heard the difference. They didn't know they were
> being "tested".

An additional elegance of Philip's procedure was that the
presentation of best first, worst last, worked against the usual
tendency for listeners in a strange room with a strange system
to feel the sound quality improves with repeated auditions of the
same music even if no changes have been made.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com

> On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
>> > wrote:
>>> On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>>>> I will find it interesting how someone could
>>>> "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
>>>> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3,
>>>> redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
>>>
>>> No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>>
>> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
>> it was confusing.
>
> No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>
> You really do need to read the article before you
> criticize it.

Jenn needs to get her facts straight when she posts. Her handling of
relevant facts is poor, even by the standard of gossip, let alone
intelligent discussion. Her problems start out with her denial of the fact
that there even are relevant facts.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com
> On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn
> > wrote:
>> In article
>> om>,
>> Since people are impatient and are guessing
>> (incorrectly) about what it is, here it is in a
>> nutshell:
>> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen
>> to a recording of part of Messiah. The first chorus
>> sounded great. On the next chorus, it didn't sound as
>> good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth chorus,
>> worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that
>> Philip Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2,
>> 16/44.1, MP3 at 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.
>
> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood
> is that the source material for the test was that the
> _same_ original recording, a DSD-encoded master, was used
> for all the transcoded versions.
> The four passages were sequential on the master and
> musically identical. When Philip burned the DVD-A for the
> test, he retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions
> back to 88.2kHz
> so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate
> or reconstruction filter when the disc was played back.
> Thus the
> only reason for there being any audible differences was
> the loss
> of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An
> elegant test.

This is a methodology that I devised and published the results of on the web
back in 2002. The results are still available here:

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

BTW, I recently licensed someone to use my original recorded samples on
their web site. Again, the PCABX samples embody a resonable philosophy that
many golden ears have belittled over the years.

Since 2002 a lot of golden ears, perhaps even Atkinson simply didn't get,
and criticized me for this work. Hey, its only been 5 years and some of them
are catching up! ;-)

One more example of "Been there, done that". ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Sep 22, 4:17 pm, vlad > wrote:
>> peons
>
> What is your implication, Vlad?

One implication is that Vlad "gets it". He has pierced the Golden Ear
Mythology viel.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ps.com
> On Sep 22, 9:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in
>> oglegroups.com

>>> My point was that as the knowledge that a listener is
>>> taking part in a test changes the way he listens...
>
> This was the whole point of the test: it was designed so
> that the listeners did not know that they were taking part
> in a listening test.

Shows how little you really understand about concealing the fact that a test
is a test, John.

As soon as a reasonably savvy audiophile heard the same music repeated the
second time, noticed the context, and thought for it for about 55
milliseconds or less, they at least suspected that this was a listening
test.

From then on, the ballon of mystique related to listening for pleasure was
pierced and deflated.

Simply a poorly desgned test, mostly because it was on Mission Impossible.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>>> On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>>
>>> Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
>>> trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
>>> a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
>>
>> Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
>
> Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.

Not really Jenn. You and John go back a long ways. Ooops, sorry to accuse
you have having a hetrosexual relationship. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com
> On Sep 20, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @
> comcast . net> wrote:
>> Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio
>> issue.
>
> Pimping for S'phile is now an audio issue? Since when?

It's part of the continuing Middiotization of Jenn.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > On Sep 20, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @
> > comcast . net> wrote:
> >> Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio
> >> issue.
> >
> > Pimping for S'phile is now an audio issue? Since when?
>
> It's part of the continuing Middiotization of Jenn.

What an idiotic statement.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >> in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
> >>> trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
> >>> a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(
> >>
> >> Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things
> >
> > Yes, you and Vlad are quite the pair.
>
> Not really Jenn.

Yes, really.

> You and John go back a long ways.

Yeah, I've posted a very few posts to John over the span of a couple of
years. Your point? By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a
long ways. Opps, sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual
relationship. ;-)

> Ooops, sorry to accuse
> you have having a hetrosexual relationship. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>
> > On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> >> > wrote:
> >>> On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >>>> I will find it interesting how someone could
> >>>> "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
> >>>> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3,
> >>>> redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >>>
> >>> No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >>
> >> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> >> it was confusing.
> >
> > No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> > "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> > created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> > intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> > unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> > had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >
> > You really do need to read the article before you
> > criticize it.
>
> Jenn needs to get her facts straight when she posts. Her handling of
> relevant facts is poor, even by the standard of gossip, let alone
> intelligent discussion. Her problems start out with her denial of the fact
> that there even are relevant facts.

lol
"Heigh Ho, Heigh Ho
It's off to church we go..."

It's always worse on Sundays...

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 23, 8:39 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in glegroups.com
> > On Sep 22, 9:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >> in oglegroups.com
> >>> My point was that as the knowledge that a listener is
> >>> taking part in a test changes the way he listens...
> >
> > This was the whole point of the test: it was designed so
> > that the listeners did not know that they were taking part
> > in a listening test.
>
> Shows how little you really understand about concealing the fact
> that a test is a test, John. As soon as a reasonably savvy
> audiophile heard the same music repeated the second time,
> noticed the context, and thought for it for about 55 milliseconds
> or less, they at least suspected that this was a listening test.

It is very difficult discussing anything with people who would rather
be thought stupid than wrong. Let me explain what happened in one
words of one syllable for you, Mr. Krueger.Here is what Jenn
paraphrased from my essay in the October issue of Stereophile:

>>> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen
>>> to a recording of part of Messiah. The first chorus
>>> sounded great. On the next chorus, it didn't sound as
>>> good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth chorus,
>>> worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that
>>> Philip Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2,
>>> 16/44.1, MP3 at 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.

Here is what I wrote in response in a posting I know you read, Mr.
Krueger, because you commented on it:

>> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood
>> is that the source material for the test was that the
>> _same_ original recording, a DSD-encoded master, was used
>> for all the transcoded versions. The four passages were
>> sequential on the master and musically identical...

You really do need to actualy read what I write, Mr. Krueger in
the current issue of Stereophile. The extract from Messiah was
"For Unto Us a Boy is Born." It starts with four choruses, each
lasting about a minute, that are indeed musically identical. (The
lyrics are different, of course, but that doens't affect the validity
of the test.) As the listeners were very familiar with this music
(is there anyone who isn't, other than Mr. Krueger?), hearing 4
musically identical choruses was exactly what we were
expecting to hear.

The stated purpose of the listening sessions was to hear
Philip Hobbs' very fine recording of Messiah, which Linn is
making available for purchase as a DRM-free FLAC download
on its website. The AES Conference was about the future of
hi-rez music delivery, _especially_ via download, so the
ostensible cover story for what turned out to be a listening test
was eminently reasonable.

As I wrote above, it is very difficult discussing anything with people
who would rather be thought stupid or illiterate than wrong. such
as yourself Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > It's part of the continuing Middiotization of Jenn.

> What an idiotic statement.

Pity the Krooborg. Everything seems black to it.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> Opps,

I think you probably meant to say "Oops".

> sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)

You want pictures? Arnii is *so* my bitch. ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 23, 1:05 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> >> In article om>,
> >> Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> >> is, here it is in a nutshell:
> >> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> >> of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> >> chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> >> chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> >> Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> >> 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.
> >
> > That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood is that the
> > source material for the test was that the _same_ original recording,
> > a DSD-encoded master, was used for all the transcoded versions.
> > The four passages were sequential on the master and musically
> > identical. When Philip burned the DVD-A for the test, he
> > retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions back to 88.2kHz
> > so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate or
> > reconstruction filter when the disc was played back. Thus the
> > only reason for there being any audible differences was the loss
> > of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An elegant test.
>
> Sorry...but the process for creation of these selections is not
> clear to me at all.
> You started with DSD.....which is converted to DVD-A?

This is what I understood from Philip to be the genesis of the
examples:

1) Starting point was the DSD master for the the Linn SACD of
Handel's Messiah.

2) This was transcoded to in the digital domain to 24/88k2
LPCM (a straightforward process these days).

2) The 24/88k PCM file was downsampled/decimated to 16/44k1.
Again a straightforward process that halves the signal bandwidth
and reduces resolution, even with noise-shaping/dither.

3) 2 different MP3 versions were produced from the 16/44k1
version, one at 320kbps, the other at 192kbps. Again
a straightforward but increasingly lossy conversion.

The latter 3 files were then upsampled back to 24-bit, 88.2kHz
versions. Very easy to do in the digital domain, though this
doesn't put back the data that had earlier been eliminated.
The peak levels of all four versions were the same and it is
trivially easy to splice together a version of the music that
switches from one version to another at appropriate moments
in the music.

The resultant 24/88k2 LPCM file was burned to DVD+R
using Minnetonka Software's Discwelder program and this
2-channel DVD-A was played back on a Linn Unidisk player
feeding Meridian active speakers. There was thus no switching,
no level differences, nothing to indicate that this was a
listening test rather than a simple audition of a new Messiah
recording. As I said, very elegant.

I hope that makes things clearer for you, ScottW.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> I hope that makes things clearer for you, ScottW.

Scottie says: If your name is John Atkinson, you're wrong. Or lying.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> I just wanted to thank John for some interesting reading
> and to perhaps spur on some discussion.

Well Jenn, with you so grotesquely underrepesenting John's ideas, its like
that could possibly happen.

> This being RAO,
> I should have realized that people would use the
> opportunity to be critical of John without first reading
> the piece.

John has a history of non-performance when it comes to intellectual honesty.
But, he sure knows how to sell obsolete and overpriced equipment!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>>
>>> On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I will find it interesting how someone could
>>>>>> "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
>>>>>> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3,
>>>>>> redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
>>>> it was confusing.
>>>
>>> No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
>>> "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
>>> created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
>>> intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
>>> unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
>>> had no idea they were taking part in a test.
>>>
>>> You really do need to read the article before you
>>> criticize it.
>>
>> Jenn needs to get her facts straight when she posts. Her
>> handling of relevant facts is poor, even by the standard
>> of gossip, let alone intelligent discussion. Her
>> problems start out with her denial of the fact that
>> there even are relevant facts.
>
> lol
> "Heigh Ho, Heigh Ho
> It's off to church we go..."
>
> It's always worse on Sundays...

Middius has been whining about this for years, but you're quickly learning
his schtick, Jenn.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg lied:

> > It's always worse on Sundays...

> Middius has been [commenting on] this for years

Wrong again, ****-for-Dinner. The first Normal who observed your
intensified filthfulness on Sundays was dave weil.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ps.com
> On Sep 23, 8:39 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in
>> glegroups.com
>>> On Sep 22, 9:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>>> wrote
>>>> in
>>>> oglegroups.com
>>>>> My point was that as the knowledge that a listener is
>>>>> taking part in a test changes the way he listens...
>>>
>>> This was the whole point of the test: it was designed so
>>> that the listeners did not know that they were taking
>>> part in a listening test.
>>
>> Shows how little you really understand about concealing
>> the fact that a test is a test, John. As soon as a
>> reasonably savvy audiophile heard the same music
>> repeated the second time,
>> noticed the context, and thought for it for about 55
>> milliseconds or less, they at least suspected that this
>> was a listening test.
>
> It is very difficult discussing anything with people who
> would rather be thought stupid than wrong.

I figured that out about a decade or more ago John. If you're only 10 years
behind me now, then you're catching up in your way.

> Let me explain
> what happened in one words of one syllable for you, Mr.
> Krueger.Here is what Jenn paraphrased from my essay in
> the October issue of Stereophile:

>>>> Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen
>>>> to a recording of part of Messiah. The first chorus
>>>> sounded great. On the next chorus, it didn't sound as
>>>> good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth chorus,
>>>> worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners,
>>>> that
>>>> Philip Hobbs had burned the disk in this order:
>>>> 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.

> Here is what I wrote in response in a posting I know you
> read, Mr. Krueger, because you commented on it:

>>> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood
>>> is that the source material for the test was that the

>>> _same_ original recording, a DSD-encoded master, was
>>> used for all the transcoded versions. The four
>>> passages were sequential on the master and musically
>>> identical...

> You really do need to actualy read what I write, Mr.
> Krueger in
> the current issue of Stereophile. The extract from
> Messiah was "For Unto Us a Boy is Born." It starts with
> four choruses, each lasting about a minute, that are
> indeed musically identical. (The lyrics are different, of
> course, but that doens't affect the validity of the
> test.) As the listeners were very familiar with this
> music (is there anyone who isn't, other than Mr.
> Krueger?), hearing 4 musically identical choruses was
> exactly what we were expecting to hear.

Oh then I gave you both too much credit John, I forgot that this was *not*
an apples-to-apples comparison.

> The stated purpose of the listening sessions was to hear
> Philip Hobbs' very fine recording of Messiah, which Linn
> is making available for purchase as a DRM-free FLAC download
> on its website.

I have to admit that its amusing to see you overlook a study in futility
when you see one, John. I downloaded the test sample from the web site,
presuming that this was Linn's figurative best foot, that they put forward.

Looking at the spectral content of the recording, I find that its energy
content sharply drops off above about 11 KHz. The rate of drop-off is such
that by 22 KHz the energy level is more than 40 dB lower than what it was at
11 KHz. Needless to say, just about everything above the middle of the top
octave (about 16 Khz) is so deep into masking that it would take a good
imagination and a lot of optimism to hope that a brick wall filter at 16
Khz would have an audible effect.

> The AES Conference was about the future of
> hi-rez music delivery, _especially_ via download, so the
> ostensible cover story for what turned out to be a
> listening test was eminently reasonable.

To your average Stereophile reader, FLAC might be SOTA. For the real world,
FLAC has been around for at least 7 years.

> As I wrote above, it is very difficult discussing
> anything with people who would rather be thought stupid
> or illiterate than wrong. such as yourself Mr. Krueger.

John, it ain't what a few people or one sore loser like you thinks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> On Sep 20, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
>>> @ comcast . net> wrote:
>>>> Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Pimping for S'phile is now an audio issue? Since when?
>>
>> It's part of the continuing Middiotization of Jenn.
>
> What an idiotic statement.

Your master of the obvious is quite impressive Jenn. You've finally noticed
that Middiot and idiot have very similar meanings.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii "I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer" Krooger said:

> > It is very difficult discussing anything with people who
> > would rather be thought stupid than wrong.

> I figured that out about a decade or more ago John.

That explains the hash you made of your "career" during your first 50
years.

> If you're only 10 years
> behind me now, then you're catching up in your way.

Just when we thought you couldn't embarrass yourself any worse than you
already have, up pops another fabulous floater. You're a pip, Arnii. ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 23, 3:32 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> just about everything above the middle of the top octave (about 16 kHz)
> is so deep into masking that it would take a good imagination and a
> lot of optimism to hope that a brick wall filter at 16 kHz would have
> an audible effect.

If you say so, Mr. Krueger. But isn't it peculiar, then, that under
the
blind condtions of the test, 4 listeners who weren't even aware that
it
was a test independently thought they heard differences. But to
forestall your inevitable nitpicking, no, the test procedure was not
immune to telepathic and unconscious communication between
Philip Hobbs and the listeners. That must have been the flaw :-)

Been thinking about your claims to have invented many of the
protocols that were used in this test. The subject of bias-controlled
testing was a hot topic of conversation at the AES Conference,
yet your name didn't come up in any of the formal presentations
or in casual conversation. Why do you think that was, Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 22, 1:05 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Bill Riel > wrote:
> > Despite all the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, thanks for
> > pointing this out. I picked up a copy of Stereophile last night and I
> > really did enjoy the article.
> >
> > I haven't bought the magazine in a while, but I'm quite enjoying this
> > issue in general.

Glad to hear it, Mr. Riel.

> I just wanted to thank John for some interesting reading and to perhaps
> spur on some discussion. This being RAO, I should have realized that
> people would use the opportunity to be critical of John without first
> reading the piece.

Sadly, that appears to be case, with the insecure, cheap, and envious
all taking their hobbyhorses out for a ride. Perhaps it would be safer
all round, Jenn, if you just emailed me when you feel I have written
something worth reading. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Sep, 23:13, John Atkinson >
wrote:


> The subject of bias-controlled
> testing was a hot topic of conversation at the AES Conference,
> yet your name didn't come up in any of the formal presentations
> or in casual conversation. Why do you think that was, Mr. Krueger?
>
> John Atkinson


That's because you didn't visit the correct "conference" room.
By that, I mean the toilets.
Guess you didn't have to go.

[Jenn]

In article om>,
John Atkinson > wrote:

> On Sep 22, 1:05 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bill Riel > wrote:
> > > Despite all the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, thanks for
> > > pointing this out. I picked up a copy of Stereophile last night and I
> > > really did enjoy the article.
> > >
> > > I haven't bought the magazine in a while, but I'm quite enjoying this
> > > issue in general.
>
> Glad to hear it, Mr. Riel.
>
> > I just wanted to thank John for some interesting reading and to perhaps
> > spur on some discussion. This being RAO, I should have realized that
> > people would use the opportunity to be critical of John without first
> > reading the piece.
>
> Sadly, that appears to be case, with the insecure, cheap, and envious
> all taking their hobbyhorses out for a ride. Perhaps it would be safer
> all round, Jenn, if you just emailed me when you feel I have written
> something worth reading. :-(
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Sad, but true.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com
> >>> On Sep 20, 12:18 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
> >>> @ comcast . net> wrote:
> >>>> Yapper tries to get the discussion back to an audio
> >>>> issue.
> >>>
> >>> Pimping for S'phile is now an audio issue? Since when?
> >>
> >> It's part of the continuing Middiotization of Jenn.
> >
> > What an idiotic statement.
>
> Your master of the obvious is quite impressive Jenn.

OK, I think that I've translated that correctly.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> >> in message
> >> ups.com
> >>
> >>> On Sep 21, 4:22 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 21, 12:55 pm, John Atkinson
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>> On Sep 20, 3:10 pm, ScottW >
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> I will find it interesting how someone could
> >>>>>> "unintentionally" create a valid test more than I am
> >>>>>> interested in the ability to differentiate MP3,
> >>>>>> redbook CD and dead hi-rez formats.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No-one said the test was "unintentionally" created.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn did. Apparently your writing was so well written
> >>>> it was confusing.
> >>>
> >>> No. Jenn correctly quoted me as wriring that it was an
> >>> "unintentional" test, not that it was "unintentionally
> >>> created," which was you wrote. The test was very much
> >>> intentional on the part of its designer, but it was
> >>> unintentional on the part of the listeners because they
> >>> had no idea they were taking part in a test.
> >>>
> >>> You really do need to read the article before you
> >>> criticize it.
> >>
> >> Jenn needs to get her facts straight when she posts. Her
> >> handling of relevant facts is poor, even by the standard
> >> of gossip, let alone intelligent discussion. Her
> >> problems start out with her denial of the fact that
> >> there even are relevant facts.
> >
> > lol
> > "Heigh Ho, Heigh Ho
> > It's off to church we go..."
> >
> > It's always worse on Sundays...
>
> Middius has been whining about this for years, but you're [sic] quickly learning
> his schtick, Jenn.

According to Arny, if two people notice the obvious, one learned it from
the other.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > I just wanted to thank John for some interesting reading
> > and to perhaps spur on some discussion.
>
> Well Jenn, with you so grotesquely underrepesenting John's ideas, its like
> that could possibly happen.

Well Arny, I made the mistake of thinking that someone might actually
READ the thing before being critical of it. Silly me.

>
> > This being RAO,
> > I should have realized that people would use the
> > opportunity to be critical of John without first reading
> > the piece.
>
> John has a history of non-performance when it comes to intellectual honesty.
> But, he sure knows how to sell obsolete and overpriced equipment!

John sells magazines and recordings.

[Bill Riel]

In article om>,
says...
> On Sep 22, 1:05 pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Bill Riel > wrote:
> > > Despite all the howls of outrage from the usual suspects, thanks for
> > > pointing this out. I picked up a copy of Stereophile last night and I
> > > really did enjoy the article.
> > >
> > > I haven't bought the magazine in a while, but I'm quite enjoying this
> > > issue in general.
>
> Glad to hear it, Mr. Riel.

Well, I'm enjoying it so much I decided to subscribe :-)

I get magazines for my other hobbies, so I thought why not audio? And
the subscription rate is *much* lower than picking these up at the
newstand. As an added bonus, it's never been cheaper: I'm in Canada, and
with the currencies at par this is a bargain!

--
Bill

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-0707FC.15014323092007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> In article om>,
> John Atkinson > wrote:

[...]

> > Sadly, that appears to be case, with the insecure, cheap, and envious
> > all taking their hobbyhorses out for a ride. Perhaps it would be safer
> > all round, Jenn, if you just emailed me when you feel I have written
> > something worth reading. :-(
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> Sad, but true.

True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this article
up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be some
positive side effects, even in RAO :-)

--
Bill

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 23, 7:15 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> I'm enjoying it so much I decided to subscribe :-)

Enjoy. Don't hesitate to let me know if we disappoint.

> As an added bonus, it's never been cheaper: I'm in Canada, and
> with the currencies at par this is a bargain!

Tell me about it! I spent last week in England on family matters
and can't remember when the US dollar was worth so little.
Sitting in the Heathrow Starbucks on the way home, drinking
a large cafe mocha, munching on a muffin, and checking my
email via WiFi, I spent $20! Sad personal evidence that the Bush
administration's financial policies do not inspire international
confidence in our currency.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

> True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this article
> up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be some
> positive side effects, even in RAO :-)

Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO entertianment.
Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil. ;-)

[Bill Riel]

In article >, George M.
Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
>
>
> Bill Riel said:
>
> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this article
> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be some
> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
>
> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO entertianment.
> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil. ;-)

Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises Michael
Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, George M.
> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >>
> >>
> >> Bill Riel said:
> >>
> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this article
> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be some
> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >>
> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO entertianment.
> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil. ;-)
> >
> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises Michael
> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
>
> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
>
> ScottW

Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said:

> > Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO entertianment.
> > Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil. ;-)

> Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
> creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises Michael
> Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!

Oh yes, the 'borgs HATE Fremer. Best to sneak that one in when They are
distracted though -- the effect is more startling.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.

You accuse nearly as many Normals of telling "lies" as the Krooborg does.
I don't think it's a reach to discern a pattern here: Neither you nor
Mr. **** reads at an adult level; you both fling random accusations of
being misinterpreted by nearly everybody; and neither of you can manage to
express what you claim to mean in less than three or four attempts.

Krooger is krazy and you're mentally defective. Case closed.

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-40801A.17264723092007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> > people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?

I am mildly curious as well - John strikes me as being a pretty decent
individual who wouldn't deliberately lie or distort. Is it possible that
he simply misunderstood what you were trying to say?

--
Bill

[Jenn]

In article >,
Bill Riel > wrote:

> In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-40801A.17264723092007
> @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> says...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >
> > > Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> > > people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> > >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
>
> I am mildly curious as well - John strikes me as being a pretty decent
> individual who wouldn't deliberately lie or distort. Is it possible that
> he simply misunderstood what you were trying to say?
>
> --
> Bill

You're a shill! ;-)

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of trust.
>>>>>>> At some point, you're always trusting someone anyway.
>>>>>>> I can see why you might want to think all the reviewers
>>>>>>> would stoop to cheating the system......but I'm willing
>>>>>>> to give 'em a chance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
>>>>>>> software that store results over the web.
>>>>>>> All they have to do is hook it up, train, let the PC
>>>>>>> make the random selections without cheating, and
>>>>>>> choose. The fact that this is beyond your
>>>>>>> comprehension is not surprising.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ScottW
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's something wrong with these ideas you're proposing
>>>>>> above. I'd like to expound on it and exchange views with you
>>>>>
>>>>> Go ahead.
>>>>
>>>> Okey.
>>>>
>>>> While the reviewer is listening to your proposed simple DBT
>>>> as above, when would the reviewer determine whether the sound
>>>> is different or not while listening critically ?
>>>
>>> Odd question.....anyway, when is up to the subject.
>>
>> Huh ? What do you mean by -- when it is up to the subject?
>> Suppose the subject suddendy felt an urge to have his toenails
>> clipped and demanding during the same time that you perform
>> strip dance atop the coffee table while listening and dancing to
>> the music of Shakira. Would this be alright under your propose
>> simple DBT ?
>
> Depends on the unit under a test. A pair of amps or preamps.
> Sure...he can do whatever he wants during a trial as long as
> both amps stay on.
> Source components is a little trickier as keeping 'em time sync'd
> or at least close enough not to tip off the subject requires
> either a partner or a very diligent and trustworthy subject.
>
>> What if the subject refuse to proceed further
>> unless you do so.
>
> Trying any kind of test with an unwilling or irrational subject
> like you would not be worth the bother. I assume
> the S'phile reviewers are a "cut above".


The subject is neither unwilling nor irrational. He wants to know
the exact procedure of your simple DBT. The subject wanted to
know what he needs to do in order to determine whether the
sound is different or not.



>> So, *when* does the reviewer decide whether the sound is different
>> or not while listening critically ?


No answer.

Your evasiveness is duly and truly noted.



>>> A significant advantage IMO over a time limited proctored test.
>>
>>
>> IF it has these significant advantage then, HOW does the reviewer
>> decide whether the sound is different or not while listening
>> critically ?
>
>
> He considers the auditory evidence and decides.



WHAT KIND OF A GIANT FU**WAD ARE YOU.

What is wrong with you ? You are becoming more and more
like the the Bug-eating McKelvy the more I learn and read
these irrational thoughts bursting out of your head.

HOW can the reviewer consider the auditory evidence of sound
differences between the UUT when your first and foremost requirement
of your propose simple DBT is to prevent them from knowing specifically
when the musical sound samples were being switch ?

Here's what *you* said:

"All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
software that store results over the web. All they have to
do is hook it up, train, let the PC make the random selections
without cheating, and choose. "




PLEASE explain to me about "when" will they be able to make
these comparison during your simple DBT so that they will be
able to consider any auditory evidence of sound differences
and decides.

_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________




> ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >, George M.
> >> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bill Riel said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this
> >> >> > article
> >> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be
> >> >> > some
> >> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO entertianment.
> >> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil. ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
> >> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises Michael
> >> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
> >>
> >> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> >> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
>
> It was a thread titled So you Know.
>
> But one Message ID of many
>
>
> Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.
>
> ScottW

I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from that
thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations". Could you
help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.

Also, this obviously goes more distantly into the past than July of this
year, doesn't it?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Jenn said:
>
> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> > Opps,
>
> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
>
> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
>
> You want pictures?

Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
solid ass-licking?

> Arnii is *so* my bitch. ;-)

Personally, I'd keep that quiet.

[George M. Middius]

Bill Riel said to duh-Scottie:

> I am mildly curious as well - John strikes me as being a pretty decent
> individual who wouldn't deliberately lie or distort. Is it possible that
> he simply misunderstood what you were trying to say?

I'll bet Scottie's "motor" has already "raced" ahead to the next
intersection. (That would be where his private world of delusions
intersects the real world.) If you listen, you'll hear the crash.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to Witlessmongrel:

[Scottie's attempt to substantiate his accusation that JA is a "liar":
> ]

> > Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> > letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.

> I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from that
> thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations". Could you
> help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.

Here's the part where Scottie went ballistic:

JA:
> > You can find a good essay on ScottW's role models in opting
> > for force as the prime option

SW:
> Another lie.

Witless doesn't mention what the earlier lie(s) was or were.

> I don't call for invasion of Iran.

In this claim, I believe Witless isn't lying, but rather so confused that
he doesn't know what he said earlier.

> I don't call for invasion of Pakistan like Jenn.

Of course, this wasn't a "lie" because the word "lie" has a peculiar --
and unknown -- meaning in Scottie-speak.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > You want pictures?

> Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> solid ass-licking?

Sorry, no.

> > Arnii is *so* my bitch. ;-)

> Personally, I'd keep that quiet.

Don't you want to know how much he pays? I don't take his broken-down
computer parts in trade, either. ;-)

[Bill Riel]

In article <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-CCD7FF.17434323092007
@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
says...

> You're a shill! ;-)

LOL! Yeah, I suppose I am at that...

--
Bill

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>
>... snip
>
>
> Needless to say...this line of inquiry is going no where
> due to the nature of the questions.


I'm sorry but the very nature of the questions I ask
were specificaly derived based on what YOU wrote. HOW are
my questions irrelevant from your propose DBT ?


Here they are again.


[i]
>> IF it has these significant advantage then, HOW does the reviewer
>> decide whether the sound is different or not while listening
>> critically ?


[You replied]

> He considers the auditory evidence and decides.



HOW can the reviewer consider the auditory evidence of sound
differences between the UUT when your first and foremost requirement
of your propose simple DBT is to prevent them from knowing specifically
when the musical sound samples were being switch ?

Here's what you said:

"All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
software that store results over the web. All they have to
do is hook it up, train, let the PC make the random selections
without cheating, and choose. "

PLEASE explain to me about "when" will they be able to make
these comparison during your simple DBT so that they will be
able to consider any auditory evidence of sound differences
and decides.




> ScottW


(Why is it difficult for you to response these questions?)

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> > net> wrote:
> >> Jenn said:
> >>
> >> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> >> > Opps,
> >>
> >> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
> >>
> >> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
> >>
> >> You want pictures?
> >
> > Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> > solid ass-licking?
>
> Question for Jenn.....Do you find this kind of stuff a positive or
> negative for the group? Just curious.

Negative, of course, as I've stated in the past.

>
> There are people here capable of having a discussion and like
> friends, don't have to always see eye to eye and can even get
> frustrated with a person without stooping to infantilisms.
>
> ScottW

Of course.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >, George M.
> >> >> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Bill Riel said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought this
> >> >> >> > article
> >> >> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can be
> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO
> >> >> >> entertianment.
> >> >> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their devil.
> >> >> >> ;-)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
> >> >> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises
> >> >> > Michael
> >> >> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
> >> >>
> >> >> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> >> >> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
> >>
> >> It was a thread titled So you Know.
> >>
> >> But one Message ID of many
> >>
>
> You familiar with google groups advanced search.

Opps! You left out a word! Anyway, no, I've never used it.

> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&
>
> Window at bottem, paste in message id and
> you get here.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/429645b5dc974e73
>
>
> >>
> >> Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> >> letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from that
> > thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations". Could you
> > help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.
>
> It was the usual BS of attributing to me things I never said

Oh yes, I remember this escalating rather quickly. So if he was
mistaken, why not just say that?

So he has done this to you before, i.e. "usual"?

> and actually stating "ScottW and people of his ilk"
> or something to that effect. I won't stand for someone
> stooping to a cheap attempt to deny me my individuality.

You mean like "liberals" or "Dems" or "the Left"?

> >
> > Also, this obviously goes more distantly into the past than July of this
> > year, doesn't it?
>
> Not with me.
>
> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 23, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> > net> wrote:
> >> Jenn said:
>
> >> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> >> > Opps,
>
> >> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
>
> >> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
>
> >> You want pictures?
>
> > Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> > solid ass-licking?
>
> Question for Jenn.....Do you find this kind of stuff a positive or
> negative for the group? Just curious.

Do you find your and Ludwig's OT rants positive or negative for the
group? Your OT stuff is just as OT as my stuff, 2pid. You are no
better, no matter how you try to posture yourself.

> There are people here capable of having a discussion and like
> friends, don't have to always see eye to eye and can even get
> frustrated with a person without stooping to infantilisms.

On audio stuff, or on OT stuff? And are you including good old Arns in
this equation, or does he "get a pass"?

Here, 2pid: I'll agree my OT stuff is detrimental to the group if you
admit that your OT stuff is equally detrimental, and are no better
than my OT posts. Take the lead! Be brave!

Imbecile.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> >> > net> wrote:
> >> >> Jenn said:
> >> >>
> >> >> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> >> >> > Opps,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
> >> >>
> >> >> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> You want pictures?
> >> >
> >> > Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> >> > solid ass-licking?
> >>
> >> Question for Jenn.....Do you find this kind of stuff a positive or
> >> negative for the group? Just curious.
> >
> > Negative, of course, as I've stated in the past.
> >
> >>
> >> There are people here capable of having a discussion and like
> >> friends, don't have to always see eye to eye and can even get
> >> frustrated with a person without stooping to infantilisms.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > Of course.
>
> I guess I'll ignore the nasty little kids whose parents failed them.
> After so many years when rehabilitation is obviously out of the
> question....we should be able to euthanize 'em, don't you think?
>
> ScottW

Sometimes it's tempting.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> gy.
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article >, George M.
> >> >> >> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Bill Riel said:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought
> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> > article
> >> >> >> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There can
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO
> >> >> >> >> entertianment.
> >> >> >> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their
> >> >> >> >> devil.
> >> >> >> >> ;-)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of JA
> >> >> >> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises
> >> >> >> > Michael
> >> >> >> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> >> >> >> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
> >> >>
> >> >> It was a thread titled So you Know.
> >> >>
> >> >> But one Message ID of many
> >> >>
> >>
> >> You familiar with google groups advanced search.
> >
> > Opps! You left out a word! Anyway, no, I've never used it.
> >
> >> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&
> >>
> >> Window at bottem, paste in message id and
> >> you get here.
> >>
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/429645b5dc974e73
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> >> >> letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from that
> >> > thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations". Could you
> >> > help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.
> >>
> >> It was the usual BS of attributing to me things I never said
> >
> > Oh yes, I remember this escalating rather quickly. So if he was
> > mistaken, why not just say that?
>
> Mistaken? It was a repetitive tactic.
> He had plenty of opportunity to retract, he never did.
>
> >
> > So he has done this to you before, i.e. "usual"?
>
> Only discussing politics. He's a hard left ******.
>
> >
> >> and actually stating "ScottW and people of his ilk"
> >> or something to that effect. I won't stand for someone
> >> stooping to a cheap attempt to deny me my individuality.
> >
> > You mean like "liberals" or "Dems" or "the Left"?
>
> One can discuss general political positions with smearing
> individuals for positions they don't share.
> His BS was as lame as the View crew asking if all the Rep.
> pres. candidates were at a Clan meeting

See, you pretty much just did the same thing. It was ONE person on The
View who said that, not the "crew".

So you don't believe that you stereotype?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>> ... snip
>>>
>>>
>>> Needless to say...this line of inquiry is going no where
>>> due to the nature of the questions.
>>
>> I'm sorry but the very nature of the questions I ask
>> were specificaly derived based on what YOU wrote. HOW are
>> my questions irrelevant from your propose DBT ?
>>
>> Here they are again.
>>
>>
>>[i]
>>>> IF it has these significant advantage then, HOW does the reviewer
>>>> decide whether the sound is different or not while listening
>>>> critically ?
>>
>> [You replied]
>>
>>> He considers the auditory evidence and decides.
>>
>> HOW can the reviewer consider the auditory evidence of sound
>> differences between the UUT when your first and foremost requirement
>> of your propose simple DBT is to prevent them from knowing
>> specifically when the musical sound samples were being switch ?
>
> I never said that...they will control the switching.

What you stated about your protocol was a bit unclear because
all you said was " ... let the PC make the random selections...".




> Say we set up an ABX test. They control the switching,
> they don't control what is X..the PC will.


Okey, now the PC only randomly controls when to switch to X.

So then, during this DBT, we have the reviewer sitting and decisively
switching between A and B, and then compare it to a sample provided
by the PC which randomly select this sample X and decide whether it is
going to be A or B. You're back to this old dbt.


How do you ensure and prevent the reviewer from making a guess ?




>> Here's what you said:
>>
>> "All they need is a PC controlled switch and a simple DBT
>> software that store results over the web. All they have to
>> do is hook it up, train, let the PC make the random selections
>> without cheating, and choose. "
>>
>> PLEASE explain to me about "when" will they be able to make
>> these comparison during your simple DBT so that they will be
>> able to consider any auditory evidence of sound differences
>> and decides.
>
> See above. Hope that explaining what I thought should be
> obvious, helps.
>
> ScottW

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> gy.
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> odi
> >> >> >> gy.
> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article >, George
> >> >> >> >> > M.
> >> >> >> >> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Bill Riel said:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you brought
> >> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> >> > article
> >> >> >> >> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise. There
> >> >> >> >> >> > can
> >> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO
> >> >> >> >> >> entertianment.
> >> >> >> >> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their
> >> >> >> >> >> devil.
> >> >> >> >> >> ;-)
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention of
> >> >> >> >> > JA
> >> >> >> >> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone praises
> >> >> >> >> > Michael
> >> >> >> >> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> >> >> >> >> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It was a thread titled So you Know.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But one Message ID of many
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> You familiar with google groups advanced search.
> >> >
> >> > Opps! You left out a word! Anyway, no, I've never used it.
> >> >
> >> >> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&
> >> >>
> >> >> Window at bottem, paste in message id and
> >> >> you get here.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/429645b5dc974e73
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> >> >> >> letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations". Could
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was the usual BS of attributing to me things I never said
> >> >
> >> > Oh yes, I remember this escalating rather quickly. So if he was
> >> > mistaken, why not just say that?
> >>
> >> Mistaken? It was a repetitive tactic.
> >> He had plenty of opportunity to retract, he never did.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So he has done this to you before, i.e. "usual"?
> >>
> >> Only discussing politics. He's a hard left ******.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> and actually stating "ScottW and people of his ilk"
> >> >> or something to that effect. I won't stand for someone
> >> >> stooping to a cheap attempt to deny me my individuality.
> >> >
> >> > You mean like "liberals" or "Dems" or "the Left"?
> >>
> >> One can discuss general political positions with smearing
> >> individuals for positions they don't share.
> >> His BS was as lame as the View crew asking if all the Rep.
> >> pres. candidates were at a Clan meeting
> >
> > See, you pretty much just did the same thing. It was ONE person on The
> > View who said that, not the "crew".
>
> They all laughed...I never even heard the token elizabeth protest
> though I only heard the usual.
>
> >
> > So you don't believe that you stereotype?
>
> I try not to. In debates I stick to what a person said or what
> has been specifically referenced...not everything that occupies
> the great gas nebula of the "right" or the "left".
> If that was the case, the entire left and democratic party should
> be incarcerated for the antics of moveon.org.
>
> ScottW

So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> .
> >> com
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> gy.
> >> >> com
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> odi
> >> >> >> gy.
> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> .pr
> >> >> >> >> odi
> >> >> >> >> gy.
> >> >> >> >> com
> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> "Bill Riel" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> >> >> > George
> >> >> >> >> >> > M.
> >> >> >> >> >> > Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> says...
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Bill Riel said:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > True, but as I mentioned already, I'm very glad you
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > brought
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > this
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > article
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > up. I wouldn't have looked the magazine up otherwise.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > There
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > can
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > positive side effects, even in RAO :-)
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, any praise of Stereophile leads to top-quality RAO
> >> >> >> >> >> >> entertianment.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Nothing discomfits the 'borgs more than exaltation of Their
> >> >> >> >> >> >> devil.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ;-)
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > Apparently true. It certainly appears that even mere mention
> >> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > JA
> >> >> >> >> >> > creates quite a stir. I wonder what happens if someone
> >> >> >> >> >> > praises
> >> >> >> >> >> > Michael
> >> >> >> >> >> > Fremer? I can just imagine the gnashing of teeth!
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Is Fremer guilty of lies and misrepresentations of what
> >> >> >> >> >> people write? Atkinson earned the scorn he draws from me.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Could you post or email the relevant info/posts?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> It was a thread titled So you Know.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> But one Message ID of many
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You familiar with google groups advanced search.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Opps! You left out a word! Anyway, no, I've never used it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?q=&
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Window at bottem, paste in message id and
> >> >> >> you get here.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/429645b5dc974e73
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Atkinson knows as I called him out immediately for
> >> >> >> >> letting his leftblackened heart corrupt him so.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I can't find that specific post, but I don't recall anything from
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > thread that John was "guilty of lies and misrepresentations".
> >> >> >> > Could
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > help me out on that? I'm seriously trying to help.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It was the usual BS of attributing to me things I never said
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Oh yes, I remember this escalating rather quickly. So if he was
> >> >> > mistaken, why not just say that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Mistaken? It was a repetitive tactic.
> >> >> He had plenty of opportunity to retract, he never did.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So he has done this to you before, i.e. "usual"?
> >> >>
> >> >> Only discussing politics. He's a hard left ******.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> and actually stating "ScottW and people of his ilk"
> >> >> >> or something to that effect. I won't stand for someone
> >> >> >> stooping to a cheap attempt to deny me my individuality.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean like "liberals" or "Dems" or "the Left"?
> >> >>
> >> >> One can discuss general political positions with smearing
> >> >> individuals for positions they don't share.
> >> >> His BS was as lame as the View crew asking if all the Rep.
> >> >> pres. candidates were at a Clan meeting
> >> >
> >> > See, you pretty much just did the same thing. It was ONE person on The
> >> > View who said that, not the "crew".
> >>
> >> They all laughed...I never even heard the token elizabeth protest
> >> though I only heard the usual.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So you don't believe that you stereotype?
> >>
> >> I try not to. In debates I stick to what a person said or what
> >> has been specifically referenced...not everything that occupies
> >> the great gas nebula of the "right" or the "left".
> >> If that was the case, the entire left and democratic party should
> >> be incarcerated for the antics of moveon.org.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?
>
> Inadvertent or a weakness.

Do you apologize when you do this?

> Sometimes its sarcastically doing unto
> others what they do unto me but that "should" be obvious...though
> around here I am ceasing to be amazed at times.
>
> ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Inadvertent or a weakness.

> Do you apologize when you do this?

"Apologizing is for weaklings." -- Karl Rove, 2005

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>snip
>
>
>> How do you ensure and prevent the reviewer from making a guess ?
>
>
> The Howard response? You can't. [...]


WHY not ?



> But if the reviewer gives up
> and guesses and consistently guesses right...that means something
> is tippin him, he's just not conscious of what it is.
>
> But then again...he should say that in his review. I couldn't tell
> this thing from that in normal listening if he has to guess.


Please explain in the case above, why you concluded that the result
from your propose DBT will be equivalent to normal listening ?



> ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>
>>>> How do you ensure and prevent the reviewer from making a guess ?
>>>
>>> The Howard response? You can't. [...]
>>
>> WHY not ?
>
> Why do you think you can?


LoL !

You have decided to share this everlasting LOVE that you have
for DBTs but still, you simply can't prevent the procedure from
sabotaging itself into pandemonium and you're asking me why
because you don't know what to do. LoL!




>>> But if the reviewer gives up
>>> and guesses and consistently guesses right...that means something
>>> is tippin him, he's just not conscious of what it is.
>>>
>>> But then again...he should say that in his review. I couldn't tell
>>> this thing from that in normal listening if he has to guess.
>>
>>
>> Please explain in the case above, why you concluded that the result
>> from your propose DBT will be equivalent to normal listening ?
>
> I think it would be more critical than typical normal listening.


Do you realize the extent of the stupidity brought on by this response ?

A normal listening to you is best done by being critical about what you're
listening to, and this is best done by guessing and guessing and guessing
to the point that you couldn't tell this thing from that because you have to
persistently make a guess.

I think it's about time you should get a special award for this type of
talent in the realm of stupidity that appears to be uniquely in you.


At least this time you didn't ran. You are brave now.

I have nothing further.


> ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 23, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> oglegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> >> > net> wrote:
> >> >> Jenn said:
>
> >> >> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> >> >> > Opps,
>
> >> >> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
>
> >> >> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
>
> >> >> You want pictures?
>
> >> > Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> >> > solid ass-licking?
>
> >> Question for Jenn.....Do you find this kind of stuff a positive or
> >> negative for the group? Just curious.
>
> > Do you find your and Ludwig's OT rants positive or negative for the
> > group? Your OT stuff is just as OT as my stuff, 2pid.
>
> Sure...one is current events & politics...food for debate,

On a group not devoted to political debate, even assuming you know
what the word means, which is a stretch.

> the other is childish insults and ridicule good for nothing

Oh, no, 2pid! Your lack of intelligence, and my pointing it out, is a
constant source of amusement!

> but immature people personal amusement.

Whatever that mens, 2pid, I'm sure that you had a 'point.'

Ever read the group's charter, 2pid? OT is OT. Sorry, but that's just
how it is. You're simply no better than I am.

Besides, I write far funnier **** than you could ever dream about. So
mine is more entertaining. Therefore, it's not quite as OT as yours
is. LOL!

> I know which I choose in absence of interesting audio
> topics to which you provide very little.

Whatever that means, 2pid.

So your OT stuff is "superior" to my OT stuff?

Is that about it?

LOL!

Sometimes, you even amaze me.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 23, 9:33 pm, Jenn > wrote:

> "ScottW" > wrote:

> > I guess I'll ignore the nasty little kids whose parents failed them.
> > After so many years when rehabilitation is obviously out of the
> > question....we should be able to euthanize 'em, don't you think?

> Sometimes it's tempting.

LOL

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel growls in shame.

> >> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?

> >> Inadvertent or a weakness.

> > Do you apologize when you do this?

> Sometimes.

I'm sure Jenn meant "... when you do this on Usenet?" The answer to that
question is a resounding "Never!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> According to Arny, if two people notice the obvious, one
> learned it from the other.

According to Jenn, if she reads something again and again over a period of
years in posts on RAO, there's no chance that those posts affected her
judgement.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Sep 23, 3:32 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> just about everything above the middle of the top octave
>> (about 16 kHz) is so deep into masking that it would
>> take a good imagination and a lot of optimism to hope
>> that a brick wall filter at 16 kHz would have an audible
>> effect.

> If you say so, Mr. Krueger. But isn't it peculiar, then,
> that under the
> blind condtions of the test, 4 listeners who weren't even
> aware that it
> was a test independently thought they heard differences.

What test? A test is based on comparing to a fixed standard. Since there are
no cases where the identical same source music was available by means of the
formats supposedly being compared, the anectdote in question does not
constitute a proper test.

Anybody who knows an iota about experiemental design would also fault the
purported procedure on the grounds that there was no randomizing of the test
samples. There could have easily been some other order sensitivity
involved.

> Been thinking about your claims to have invented many of
> the protocols that were used in this test.

Again John, you're lying but why let a little thing like intellectual
honesty get in your way?

> Been thinking about your claims to have invented many of the
> protocols that were used in this test. The subject of bias-controlled
> testing was a hot topic of conversation at the AES Conference,
> yet your name didn't come up in any of the formal presentations
> or in casual conversation. Why do you think that was, Mr. Krueger?

John, I've heard it said that it is pretty well known in audio circles that
simply uttering my name in a soft voice can help dispel the demons of
anti-science, such as the ones that you prefer to cavort with.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> om>,

>> Sadly, that appears to be case, with the insecure,
>> cheap, and envious all taking their hobbyhorses out for
>> a ride. Perhaps it would be safer all round, Jenn, if
>> you just emailed me when you feel I have written
>> something worth reading. :-(

> Sad, but true.

Jenn, it seems that trying to raise your consciousness about audio is about
as futile as raising ole Ludwig from the dead.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 23, 8:20 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > On Sep 23, 7:15 pm, Bill Riel > wrote:
> >> As an added bonus, it's never been cheaper: I'm in Canada, and
> >> with the currencies at par this is a bargain!
> >
> > Tell me about it! I spent last week in England on family matters
> > and can't remember when the US dollar was worth so little.
> > Sitting in the Heathrow Starbucks on the way home, drinking
> > a large cafe mocha, munching on a muffin, and checking my
> > email via WiFi, I spent $20! Sad personal evidence that the Bush
> > administration's financial policies do not inspire international
> > confidence in our currency.
>
> What do you expect with free trade with countries that
> have labor costs a fraction of ours?

If you say so, ScottW. I had assumed it was something to
do with the enormous increase in government spending
under the Bush Administration the past 6 years being
funded, not by increased tax revenue, but by foreign
buying of US government onds.

But I must admit I hadn't thought of you as a protectionist,
anti-free-treade Democrat. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 24, 9:23 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in oglegroups.com
> > If you say so, Mr. Krueger. But isn't it peculiar, then, that under
> > the blind condtions of the test, 4 listeners who weren't even
> > aware that it was a test independently thought they heard
> > differences.
>
> What test? A test is based on comparing to a fixed standard.
> Since there are no cases where the identical same source music
> was available by means of the formats supposedly being compared,
> the anectdote in question does not constitute a proper test.

If you say so, Mr. Krueger. But isn't it peculiar that you're doing in
this case exactly what you have done in the past with blind tests
that produced positive results: disqualifing them as tests in the
first place?

But to address your point, the reference was the first sample
auditioned, the 24-bit/88.2kHz version of the audio data. And
as you have now downloaded the FLAC version of these data,
it is trivially easy for you to prepare Red Book and MP3 versions
and ABX them to your heart's content.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> On Sep 24, 9:23 am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in
>> oglegroups.com
>>> If you say so, Mr. Krueger. But isn't it peculiar,
>>> then, that under the blind condtions of the test, 4
>>> listeners who weren't even aware that it was a test
>>> independently thought they heard differences.

>> What test? A test is based on comparing to a fixed
>> standard.
>> Since there are no cases where the identical same source
>> music
>> was available by means of the formats supposedly being
>> compared, the anectdote in question does not constitute
>> a proper test.

> If you say so, Mr. Krueger.

Try checking your references for the definition of the word test. Apparently
John, you may find doing this to be informative in ways you have never
experienced.

> But isn't it peculiar that
> you're doing in this case exactly what you have done in
> the past with blind tests that produced positive results:
> disqualifing them as tests in the first place?

Since you incessantly misrepresent things I say John, why not try
illustrating this claim with some relevant facts?

> But to address your point, the reference was the first
> sample auditioned, the 24-bit/88.2kHz version of the
> audio data.

I thought you said that the encoding method varied throughout the playing of
different segments of the same piece of music?

> And
> as you have now downloaded the FLAC version of these data,
> it is trivially easy for you to prepare Red Book and MP3
> versions and ABX them to your heart's content.

Been there done essentially the same thing many years ago.

If the MP3 versions sound different from the reference versions, nobody
should be surprised.

If the 44/16 versions reliably sound different from the 88/24 versions in a
time-synched, level-matched test, that would indeed be news. So John, why
don't you try to make some news? After all, this is your issue, not mine! I
figure that if you don't think its worth your time, then it surely isn't
worth my time.

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel growls in shame.

> >> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?

> >> Inadvertent or a weakness.

> > Do you apologize when you do this?

> Sometimes.

I'm sure Jenn meant "... when you do this on Usenet?" The answer to that
question is a resounding "Never!"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 11:50 am, ScottW > wrote:

> Wrong. You're abdicating responsibility for your actions and
> imposing a censored society. I want no part of it.

Oh goody. Then we'll hear no more BS from you on the "liberal media."

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 1:28 am, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:39 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 23, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > >> oglegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On Sep 23, 12:21 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
> > >> > net> wrote:
> > >> >> Jenn said:
>
> > >> >> > By your standard, you and George REALLY go back a long ways.
> > >> >> > Opps,
>
> > >> >> I think you probably meant to say "Oops".
>
> > >> >> > sorry to accuse you of having a homosexual relationship. ;-)
>
> > >> >> You want pictures?
>
> > >> > Sure. Do you have any of good old Arns providing 2pid with a nice,
> > >> > solid ass-licking?
>
> > >> Question for Jenn.....Do you find this kind of stuff a positive or
> > >> negative for the group? Just curious.
>
> > > Do you find your and Ludwig's OT rants positive or negative for the
> > > group? Your OT stuff is just as OT as my stuff, 2pid.
>
> > Sure...one is current events & politics...food for debate,
>
> On a group not devoted to political debate, even assuming you know
> what the word means, which is a stretch.
>
> > the other is childish insults and ridicule good for nothing
>
> Oh, no, 2pid! Your lack of intelligence, and my pointing it out, is a
> constant source of amusement!
>
> > but immature people personal amusement.
>
> Whatever that mens, 2pid, I'm sure that you had a 'point.'
>
> Ever read the group's charter, 2pid? OT is OT. Sorry, but that's just
> how it is. You're simply no better than I am.
>
> Besides, I write far funnier **** than you could ever dream about. So
> mine is more entertaining. Therefore, it's not quite as OT as yours
> is. LOL!
>
> > I know which I choose in absence of interesting audio
> > topics to which you provide very little.
>
> Whatever that means, 2pid.
>
> So your OT stuff is "superior" to my OT stuff?
>
> Is that about it?
>
> LOL!
>
> Sometimes, you even amaze me.

I'm still wondering how OT can be better than OT.

2pid's confused 'moral compass' at work again, I suppose.

[vlad]

First of all it is a positive sign that "high-end audiophilia"
eventually comes to terms with the blind test. Harry, are you
listening? Some high-enders are using blind test to prove audible
superiority of the format. Sounds definitely encouraging :-)

But in my view this test was deeply flowed and rigged toward expected
results. And of course the expected result is that these new hi-rez
formats have audible advantage over technically competent recording in
16/44.1 format.


On Sep 23, 4:14 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article om>,
> > Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> > is, here it is in a nutshell:
> > Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> > of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> > chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> > chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> > Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> > 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.
>
> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood is that the
> source material for the test was that the _same_ original recording,
> a DSD-encoded master, was used for all the transcoded versions.
> The four passages were sequential on the master and musically
> identical.

Musically they were identical, however because they were prepared from
the same source by different codecs, these codecs introduced different
artifacts in a sound. So together with differences in formats we have
different algorithmic artifacts that, I guess, could affect the sound
too. JA proclaims that the observed difference was due to the format
only.

> When Philip burned the DVD-A for the test, he
> retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions back to 88.2kHz
> so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate or
> reconstruction filter when the disc was played back. Thus the
> only reason for there being any audible differences was the loss
> of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An elegant test.
>

As I explained above differences were due to a different algorithms
that produced different results. So "signal resolution" was not only
the factor.

> > Everyone heard the difference. They didn't know they were
> > being "tested".
>
> An additional elegance of Philip's procedure was that the
> presentation of best first, worst last, worked against the usual
> tendency for listeners in a strange room with a strange system
> to feel the sound quality improves with repeated auditions of the
> same music even if no changes have been made.
>

I wonder how opinions of the four people were recorded? Did each of
them had his own list of paper where he recorded his grade without
consulting others? Or they talked after each track and come to common
consensus?

In a first case they definitely knew they are participating in a test.
In a second case peer pressure add significant distortion to results.
In both cases it does not sound as what JA claims. So much for
"elegant" :-)

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

To make this test more convincing the designer of the test should put
more efforts onto eliminating all factors not related to the
characteristic of the sound under test - recording format.

1) To eliminate cross talk between testers each of them head to be
"stealthily" subjected to the test "in a single mode" one in a room
without any knowledge that other people are subjected to the same
test.

2) Results of the test from four people are not statistically
significant. There should be more of them.

3) The testers itself should be qualified as capable testers. The
simplest way would be to include the same track in a sequence and see
if they can identify it as identical.

Did I forget anything else?

I understand that this procedure is more time and effort consuming.
But you have to pay the price if you want credible results from the
test.

The way as it was done in JA's article does not stand careful
scrutiny. However, considering that the main reason of this exercise
was to give more superficial credibility to hi-rez formats, it reached
its goal. At least, Jenn and Mr. Riel were convinced and pleased with
good writing.

All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.


vlad

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, vlad > wrote:
> All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
> the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.

I have explained why, Vlad. It is because we require those
who wish to read the magazine's content in a timely manner
to purchase the magazine on the newsstand or to subscribe.
You don't wish to give us your money, then that's fine, but
don't then complain about not being able to read the
magazine.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[vlad]

On Sep 24, 2:02 pm, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, vlad > wrote:
>
> > All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
> > the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.
>
> I have explained why, Vlad. It is because we require those
> who wish to read the magazine's content in a timely manner
> to purchase the magazine on the newsstand or to subscribe.
> You don't wish to give us your money, then that's fine, but
> don't then complain about not being able to read the
> magazine.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I don't think you would lose much money (if any at all) by publishing
this text here 3 weeks ahead of the schedule. It is pretty clear to
me now that you goofed with your "unintended blind test" and
publishing this text here would make it painfully obvious. You just
hope that in three weeks this issue will die in this news group and
you will continue your business of fooling high-enders as usual
undisturbed.

I commend you on your way to make money :-)

vlad

P.S. Where is Harry when we need him? He was so furious opponent of
blind testing. I wonder what he would say about this test.

[Harry Lavo]

"vlad" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> First of all it is a positive sign that "high-end audiophilia"
> eventually comes to terms with the blind test. Harry, are you
> listening? Some high-enders are using blind test to prove audible
> superiority of the format. Sounds definitely encouraging :-)

Thanks for the misrepresentation. I have NEVER been against blind testing
per se...only against ABX as an example of a BAD blind test for the purpose
of open-ended evaluation/discrimination of audio equipment. I've been over
the reasons many times and stand by them.

>
> But in my view this test was deeply flowed and rigged toward expected
> results. And of course the expected result is that these new hi-rez
> formats have audible advantage over technically competent recording in
> 16/44.1 format.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion...but if you want to convince anybody
else you had better at least state how and why you think the test was rigged
to give that result. Pronouncements of opinion aren't facts, or even
arguments. They are just pronouncements.

>
> On Sep 23, 4:14 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>>
>> > In article om>,
>> > Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
>> > is, here it is in a nutshell:
>> > Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
>> > of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
>> > chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
>> > chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
>> > Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
>> > 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.
>>
>> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood is that the
>> source material for the test was that the _same_ original recording,
>> a DSD-encoded master, was used for all the transcoded versions.
>> The four passages were sequential on the master and musically
>> identical.
>
> Musically they were identical, however because they were prepared from
> the same source by different codecs, these codecs introduced different
> artifacts in a sound. So together with differences in formats we have
> different algorithmic artifacts that, I guess, could affect the sound
> too. JA proclaims that the observed difference was due to the format
> only.
>
>> When Philip burned the DVD-A for the test, he
>> retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions back to 88.2kHz
>> so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate or
>> reconstruction filter when the disc was played back. Thus the
>> only reason for there being any audible differences was the loss
>> of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An elegant test.
>>
>
> As I explained above differences were due to a different algorithms
> that produced different results. So "signal resolution" was not only
> the factor.
>
>> > Everyone heard the difference. They didn't know they were
>> > being "tested".
>>
>> An additional elegance of Philip's procedure was that the
>> presentation of best first, worst last, worked against the usual
>> tendency for listeners in a strange room with a strange system
>> to feel the sound quality improves with repeated auditions of the
>> same music even if no changes have been made.
>>
>
> I wonder how opinions of the four people were recorded? Did each of
> them had his own list of paper where he recorded his grade without
> consulting others? Or they talked after each track and come to common
> consensus?
>
> In a first case they definitely knew they are participating in a test.
> In a second case peer pressure add significant distortion to results.
> In both cases it does not sound as what JA claims. So much for
> "elegant" :-)
>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> To make this test more convincing the designer of the test should put
> more efforts onto eliminating all factors not related to the
> characteristic of the sound under test - recording format.
>
> 1) To eliminate cross talk between testers each of them head to be
> "stealthily" subjected to the test "in a single mode" one in a room
> without any knowledge that other people are subjected to the same
> test.
>
> 2) Results of the test from four people are not statistically
> significant. There should be more of them.
>
> 3) The testers itself should be qualified as capable testers. The
> simplest way would be to include the same track in a sequence and see
> if they can identify it as identical.
>
> Did I forget anything else?
>
> I understand that this procedure is more time and effort consuming.
> But you have to pay the price if you want credible results from the
> test.
>
> The way as it was done in JA's article does not stand careful
> scrutiny. However, considering that the main reason of this exercise
> was to give more superficial credibility to hi-rez formats, it reached
> its goal. At least, Jenn and Mr. Riel were convinced and pleased with
> good writing.
>
> All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
> the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.
>
>
> vlad
>

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 24, 5:34 pm, vlad > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:02 pm, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, vlad > wrote:
> > > All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
> > > the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.
> >
> > I have explained why, Vlad. It is because we require those
> > who wish to read the magazine's content in a timely manner
> > to purchase the magazine on the newsstand or to subscribe.
> > You don't wish to give us your money, then that's fine, but
> > don't then complain about not being able to read the
> > magazine.
>
> I don't think you would lose much money (if any at all) by publishing
> this text here 3 weeks ahead of the schedule.

Pay the $6.95 on the newsstand, Vlad, or wait until October 15
when you can read the article for free and discuss it on-line to
your heart's content.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Sep, 04:33, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

>
> > > Arnii is *so* my bitch. ;-)
> > Personally, I'd keep that quiet.
>
> Don't you want to know how much he pays? I don't take his broken-down
> computer parts in trade, either. ;-)


we all know thaqt Arny pays as little as possible
for mass market crap.
Now, what does that say about you?!

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Sep, 16:24, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> Jenn, it seems that trying to raise your consciousness about audio is about
> as futile as raising ole Ludwig from the dead.

Bratzi is dead?
Good!!!

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > Arnii is *so* my bitch. ;-)
> > > Personally, I'd keep that quiet.

> > Don't you want to know how much he pays? I don't take his broken-down
> > computer parts in trade, either. ;-)

> we all know thaqt Arny pays as little as possible
> for mass market crap.
> Now, what does that say about you?!

I have him fooled. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel growls in shame.

> >> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?

> >> Inadvertent or a weakness.

> > Do you apologize when you do this?

> Sometimes.

I'm sure Jenn meant "... when you do this on Usenet?" The answer to that
question is a resounding "Never!"

[vlad]

On Sep 24, 2:29 pm, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "vlad" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > First of all it is a positive sign that "high-end audiophilia"
> > eventually comes to terms with the blind test. Harry, are you
> > listening? Some high-enders are using blind test to prove audible
> > superiority of the format. Sounds definitely encouraging :-)
>
> Thanks for the misrepresentation. I have NEVER been against blind testing
> per se...only against ABX as an example of a BAD blind test for the purpose
> of open-ended evaluation/discrimination of audio equipment. I've been over
> the reasons many times and stand by them.
>
>

My, my, something is changing in the air. Harry is supporting blind
test, JA calls it "elegant", Jenn is excited . . .
I guess the very soon JA together with Harry will become proponents of
DBT ("double blind" is definitely better then "ordinary blind", is not
it?).

I am glad these people are coming to their senses. And who knows, may
be, even DBT-ABX will be considered as legitimate by hard core high-
enders one day.

Anyway, I am glad to hear that progress is taking place.

And may be, one day, technically knowledgeable people disgusted with
this group will start coming back.

vlad


>
> > But in my view this test was deeply flowed and rigged toward expected
> > results. And of course the expected result is that these new hi-rez
> > formats have audible advantage over technically competent recording in
> > 16/44.1 format.
>
> Well, you are welcome to your opinion...but if you want to convince anybody
> else you had better at least state how and why you think the test was rigged
> to give that result. Pronouncements of opinion aren't facts, or even
> arguments. They are just pronouncements.
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 4:14 am, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sep 22, 8:25 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > Since people are impatient and are guessing (incorrectly) about what it
> >> > is, here it is in a nutshell:
> >> > Using the Linn Unidisk player, a bunch of people listen to a recording
> >> > of part of Messiah. The first chorus sounded great. On the next
> >> > chorus, it didn't sound as good. Third chorus, it sounds worse. Fourth
> >> > chorus, worse yet. It turns out, unknown to the listeners, that Philip
> >> > Hobbs had burned the disk in this order: 24/88.2, 16/44.1, MP3 at
> >> > 320kbps, and MP3 at 192kbps.
>
> >> That is correct. A point that others have misunderstood is that the
> >> source material for the test was that the _same_ original recording,
> >> a DSD-encoded master, was used for all the transcoded versions.
> >> The four passages were sequential on the master and musically
> >> identical.
>
> > Musically they were identical, however because they were prepared from
> > the same source by different codecs, these codecs introduced different
> > artifacts in a sound. So together with differences in formats we have
> > different algorithmic artifacts that, I guess, could affect the sound
> > too. JA proclaims that the observed difference was due to the format
> > only.
>
> >> When Philip burned the DVD-A for the test, he
> >> retranscoded the three reduced-quality versions back to 88.2kHz
> >> so that the DAC would not have to change its sample rate or
> >> reconstruction filter when the disc was played back. Thus the
> >> only reason for there being any audible differences was the loss
> >> of signal resolution due to the original trancoding.An elegant test.
>
> > As I explained above differences were due to a different algorithms
> > that produced different results. So "signal resolution" was not only
> > the factor.
>
> >> > Everyone heard the difference. They didn't know they were
> >> > being "tested".
>
> >> An additional elegance of Philip's procedure was that the
> >> presentation of best first, worst last, worked against the usual
> >> tendency for listeners in a strange room with a strange system
> >> to feel the sound quality improves with repeated auditions of the
> >> same music even if no changes have been made.
>
> > I wonder how opinions of the four people were recorded? Did each of
> > them had his own list of paper where he recorded his grade without
> > consulting others? Or they talked after each track and come to common
> > consensus?
>
> > In a first case they definitely knew they are participating in a test.
> > In a second case peer pressure add significant distortion to results.
> > In both cases it does not sound as what JA claims. So much for
> > "elegant" :-)
>
> >> John Atkinson
> >> Editor, Stereophile
>
> > To make this test more convincing the designer of the test should put
> > more efforts onto eliminating all factors not related to the
> > characteristic of the sound under test - recording format.
>
> > 1) To eliminate cross talk between testers each of them head to be
> > "stealthily" subjected to the test "in a single mode" one in a room
> > without any knowledge that other people are subjected to the same
> > test.
>
> > 2) Results of the test from four people are not statistically
> > significant. There should be more of them.
>
> > 3) The testers itself should be qualified as capable testers. The
> > simplest way would be to include the same track in a sequence and see
> > if they can identify it as identical.
>
> > Did I forget anything else?
>
> > I understand that this procedure is more time and effort consuming.
> > But you have to pay the price if you want credible results from the
> > test.
>
> > The way as it was done in JA's article does not stand careful
> > scrutiny. However, considering that the main reason of this exercise
> > was to give more superficial credibility to hi-rez formats, it reached
> > its goal. At least, Jenn and Mr. Riel were convinced and pleased with
> > good writing.
>
> > All this discussion would be much more fruitful if JA would publish
> > the full text here. I wonder why he keeps it hidden.
>
> > vlad

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 7:44 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> I'll bring up the issues as I see 'em. If it bugs you that
> others might see things my way...too bad.

You are, I presume, talking about audio issues, as if you are talking
political issues you would be putting yourself in the OT camp with me.

> You do what you have to do
> to respond, but your response is not my responsibility.

But the initiation of OT post is entirely your responsibility. Yet
it's one you either refuse to accept, or that you try to position as
ssome weird kind of 'higher calling.'

LOL! And you wonder why you are universally considered an imbecile...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > Since you don't, carry on.
>
> Thanks, I will.

Carry on bravely, 2pid. Simply carrying on is not enough.

What is your IQ, 2pid? Have you ever been diagnosed with anything
found in the DSM?

Let's discuss.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 11:18 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > Universal health care will save money overall.
>
> Then why is a 77 Billion tax increase required to pay for it?

Christ, is that all it is? That's a no-brainer.

Are you seriously worried about a measly 77 billion? We're spending
about 10 times that on the military alone.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 24, 11:26 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Not better, just cheaper basic care.
> They all suffer long waits for specialists and even longer
> waits for procedures.

Recycling OT posts from 'discussions' past, 2pid?

LOL! What an idiot.

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel growls in shame.

> >> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?

> >> Inadvertent or a weakness.

> > Do you apologize when you do this?

> Sometimes.

I'm sure Jenn meant "... when you do this on Usenet?" The answer to that
question is a resounding "Never!"

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> > Witlessmongrel growls in shame.
> >
> > > >> > So would you say that when you do stereotype that it's a mistake?
> > > >> Inadvertent or a weakness.

> > > > Do you apologize when you do this?

> > > Sometimes.

> > I'm sure Jenn meant "... when you do this on Usenet?" The answer to that
> > question is a resounding "Never!"

> I guess we can now tell when the Middiot thinks he said something
> profound[sic],

Not at all, pea-brain.

> Gotta give him credit

As expected, you're afraid to answer my question. That's why I supplied
the answer. But I wanted to give you the chance to demonstrate your
all-consuming cowardice, and now you have done so. The cowardice
complements your stupidity rather nicely.

No, you may not lick my ass.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 25, 2:34 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:29 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> > I truly think you consider yourself independent.
>
> That's good...since what I think (sic) is far more important
> than what you think, I'm in good shape (sic).

Gee, 2pid, if it helps: I not only believe, but also fully recognize,
that you have completely and independently accepted and embraced your
role as a rubber stamp for the far right.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Now posted at http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit commercial suicide by railing
against solipsism. ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in
>
> > Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> Now posted at http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/

No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my essay in
the October issue of Stereophile: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/

> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit commercial
> suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)

If you say so, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message

> On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>
>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>
>> Now posted at
>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>
> No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my essay
> in
> the October issue of Stereophile:
> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/
>
>> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit commercial
>> suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)
>
> If you say so, Mr. Krueger.

I don't know if some version of this is in "The Art of War" or not, but here
goes:

When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one is very close to
taking away the opponents soul.

I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it so
hard.

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Noi, 07:52, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote


> I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it so
> hard.


I ran that through my Krooglish decoder, which came up with this:

He makes you **** bricks

[John Atkinson]

On Nov 30, 7:52 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one is
> very close to taking away the opponents soul.

If you say so, Mr. Krueger.

> I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John...

Thank you Mr. Krueger.

> but you make it so hard.

If you say so, of course, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > in message
> >
> > > On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> > >>
> > >> .p
> > >> rodigy.com
> > >>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> > >>
> > >> Now posted at
> > >> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
> > >
> > > No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my essay
> > > in
> > > the October issue of Stereophile:
> > > http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/
> > >
> > >> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit commercial
> > >> suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)
> > >
> > > If you say so, Mr. Krueger.
> >
> > I don't know if some version of this is in "The Art of War" or not, but
> > here
> > goes:
> >
> > When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one is very close to
> > taking away the opponents soul.
> >
> > I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it
> > so
> > hard.
>
> That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion of John?
>
> Stephen

Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has "targets".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 30, 6:52 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>
> >>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>
> >> Now posted at
> >>http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>
> > No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my essay
> > in
> > the October issue of Stereophile:
> >http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/
>
> >> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit commercial
> >> suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)
>
> > If you say so, Mr. Krueger.
>
> I don't know if some version of this is in "The Art of War" or not, but here
> goes:
>
> When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one is very close to
> taking away the opponents soul.

The appropriate saying that you seek in the _The Art of War _ goes
something like this: "If your opponent is insane, and you are sane,
your chances of victory are assured. If your opponent is sane, and you
are insane, you will always be in danger. If both you and your
opponent are insane, your chances of victory are equal."

> I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it so
> hard.

That robot waving its arms and yelling "Danger! Danger!" is trying to
tell you something, Arns.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it so
> > hard.

> That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion of John?

ahhhhhhhh... Wise guy, eh? <bonk> Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has "targets".

I think that was a coded directive. Krooger's "targets" are not inviting
to Normals. Here's one of his faves:

http://www.jldr.com/indooroh14.jpg

[Jenn]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article
>
> om>,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion of John?
> >
> > Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has "targets".
>
> I believe it. He's been attacking me for years. The first I remember was
> a topic on which he and I actually agreed! Go figure.
>
> Stephen

Some will remember that some of his most "interesting" attacks of me
have come when I've tried to defend him. I finally learned my lesson.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message

> In article
> >,
> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >, "Arny
>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "John Atkinson" >
>>> wrote
>>> in message
>>>
>>>> On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>
>>>>> .p
>>>>> rodigy.com
>>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now posted at
>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
>>>>
>>>> No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my
>>>> essay in
>>>> the October issue of Stereophile:
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit
>>>>> commercial suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> If you say so, Mr. Krueger.
>>>
>>> I don't know if some version of this is in "The Art of
>>> War" or not, but here
>>> goes:
>>>
>>> When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one
>>> is very close to taking away the opponents soul.
>>>
>>> I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you
>>> John, but you make it so
>>> hard.
>>
>> That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any
>> opinion of John?
>>
>> Stephen
>
> Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has
> "targets".

God help anybody who uses figures of speech around a member of the Middiot's
posse.

[Arny Krueger]

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
>
> om>,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any
>>> opinion of John?
>>
>> Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has
>> "targets".
>
> I believe it. He's been attacking me for years. The first
> I remember was a topic on which he and I actually agreed!
> Go figure.

Stephen, its been long known that you don't know yourself well enough to
know whether you agree with something or not.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> >, "Arny
> >> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>
> >>> "John Atkinson" >
> >>> wrote
> >>> in message
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 29, 10:24 pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>
> >>>>> s
> >>>>> .p
> >>>>> rodigy.com
> >>>>>> Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now posted at
> >>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
> >>>>
> >>>> No. Jenn's September 18 posting was referring to my
> >>>> essay in
> >>>> the October issue of Stereophile:
> >>>> http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1007awsi/
> >>>>
> >>>>> Looks like Stereophile is now trying to commit
> >>>>> commercial suicide by railing against solipsism. ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>> If you say so, Mr. Krueger.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know if some version of this is in "The Art of
> >>> War" or not, but here
> >>> goes:
> >>>
> >>> When one takes away your opponent's sense of humor, one
> >>> is very close to taking away the opponents soul.
> >>>
> >>> I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you
> >>> John, but you make it so
> >>> hard.
> >>
> >> That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any
> >> opinion of John?
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >
> > Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has
> > "targets".
>
> God help anybody who uses figures of speech around a member of the Middiot's
> posse.

God help anyone responding to a paranoid person with a persecution
complex such as yourself.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 30, 10:30 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
>
> om>,
>
> Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion of John?
>
> > Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has "targets".
>
> I believe it. He's been attacking me for years. The first I remember was
> a topic on which he and I actually agreed! Go figure.

That's funny. When I first got here the same thing happened to me.

I think it must be about not agreeing vehemently enough. GOIA recently
stated that my agreeing with him was an insult. So it goes when
dealing with the insane.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 30, 10:55 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in

> > Arny recently admitted on another newsgroup that he has
> > "targets".
>
> God help anybody who uses figures of speech around a member of the Middiot's
> posse.

I talked to god recently. He told me to tell you to quit using his
name in vain.

[John Atkinson]

On Nov 30, 11:32 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> > MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > > I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but
> > > > you make it so hard.
>
> > > That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion
> > > of John?

Charter subscriber?

> > ahhhhhhhh... Wise guy, eh? <bonk> Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
>
> Should have gone with "you make it so hard"?

I successfully resisted that temptation. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Bill Riel]

In article <0bf32c09-a099-4d50-9eab-b5f53649fcc5
@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Nov 30, 11:32 am, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> > Should have gone with "you make it so hard"?
>
> I successfully resisted that temptation. :-)

And for that we are all very thankful ;-)

--
Bill

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > [The Krooborg has] been attacking me for years. The first I remember was
> > a topic on which he and I actually agreed! Go figure.

> Some will remember that some of his most "interesting" attacks of me
> have come when I've tried to defend him. I finally learned my lesson.

Did you? Did you *really* learn, Jenn? If you learned anything, it
should be that the Krooborg is infallible. Or at least less infallible
than anybody else. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg tries to advance that miasma of disinformation and
falsehoods it calls "sicicccnnnccce".

> Stephen, its been long known that you don't know yourself well enough to
> know whether you agree with something or not.

Arnii, did you hear about that recent study that identified some
"socially contagious" aspects of obesity? I think you should take your
disinformation campaign to NIH and ask them to find out if insanity is
also "socially contagious". Otherwise, you're just flushing and flushing
to no avail. Totally futile.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > > I've always wanted nothing but total sucess for you John, but you make it
> > > > so hard.

> > > That's an odd admission. Why does Sun Tzu have any opinion of John?

> > ahhhhhhhh... Wise guy, eh? <bonk> Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

> Should have gone with "you make it so hard"?

<shriek!> Another outstanding exhibit for your Museum of the Grotesque.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg's tailhook is snagged again.

> God help anybody who uses figures of speech around a member of the Middiot's
> posse.

Jenn is out of my posse, Turdy. She had the standard free trial
membership, but when it expired, she declined to pay a year's dues. So
that was that.