Back to the Basics

[JimC]

As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Jim

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
> December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
> entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
> comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
> fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
> since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
> that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
> people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
> instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were
> not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>
> Further:
>
> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
> credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
> kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for example)
> that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
> Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
> and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?
We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.
Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

So what are you bitching about?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JimC wrote:
>
>
>
> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
> the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
> have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
> listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
> "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
> And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
> acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
> original vision."



How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?


Mr. Cate, I would like to deliver Mr. Holt's head to Rao in a silver
platter with a red apple stuck in his big yap. But unfortunately
he is a no-show yet again.




> Further:
>
> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
> credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
> kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
> example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
> since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
> and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?
>
> Jim


In order to see that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask, Mr.
Cate,
for you to clarify what you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty'
control
with regard specifically to double blind testing as qouted above.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:

>> > As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
>> > December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
>> > entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
>> > comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
>> > fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
>> > "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
>> > And
>> > since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
>> > that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
>> > people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
>> > instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
>> > were
>> > not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>
>> > Further:

>> > "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
>> > credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
>> > kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
>> > example)
>> > that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
>> > Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

>> > Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
>> > and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Right, and they are so stupid and arrogant that they can be counted up to
step right up on cue, and expose their ignorance. Here's an example from one
of RAO's leading idiots:


>>Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Advance sound quality in accordance with what measure or standard?

> Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?

Except of course, everything doesn't sound the same except perhaps according
to their vinyl noise and tube distortion deafened ears.

We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.

Why gild lillies? Why beat dead horses?

>Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

Only if you ignore the serious audible problems with recording, microphones,
playback, rooms, and loudspeakers.

> Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
> stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.

???????????

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
et...
>> JimC wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
>> the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
>> have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
>> listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
>> "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>
>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
>> And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>> acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
>> original vision."

> How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?

Why don't you ask him, Borglet?

Oh, I forgot you are not important enough for Holt to bother with.

Sorry!

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 08:17, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
> instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
> the better game.

Arny keeps score when listening to music.
For the previous symphony, the Violins beat the Bassoons
24-7


>
> The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
> gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
> experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.


Arny got 4 miles per measure!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 08:19, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> Why don't you ask him, Borglet?
>


he is not yet 'up' to your level of borgfeciency

[JimC]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

>>JimC wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
>>the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
>>have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
>>listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
>>"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>
>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
>>And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>>likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>>because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>>Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>>acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
>>original vision."
>
>
>
>
> How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?
>
>
> Mr. Cate, I would like to deliver Mr. Holt's head to Rao in a silver
> platter with a red apple stuck in his big yap. But unfortunately
> he is a no-show yet again.
>
>

In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message

> > On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > > wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
> >> > As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
> >> > December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
> >> > entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
> >> > comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
> >> > fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
> >> > "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
> >> > And
> >> > since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
> >> > that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
> >> > people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
> >> > instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
> >> > were
> >> > not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>
> >> > Further:
> >> > "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
> >> > credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
> >> > kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
> >> > example)
> >> > that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
> >> > Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
> comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved. I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!" Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well. Their
decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Aren't they stupid?

> The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
> instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
> the better game.

Audio as a hobby is not a "competition", good old insane Arns.

> The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
> gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
> experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

No, it would be, "Which car did you like better?"

> >> > Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
> >> > and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?
>
> Right, and they are so stupid and arrogant that they can be counted up to
> step right up on cue, and expose their ignorance. Here's an example from one
> of RAO's leading idiots:

The funny thing is, good old insane Arns, is that I agree with you on
most things about audio, except the part about not giving people the
ability to make their own choices without ridicule.

So we must be "leading idiots" together. LOL!

> >>Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.
>
> Advance sound quality in accordance with what measure or standard?

Whatever standard the listener chooses for themselves. It could be as
simple as, "This goes with my decor better." I know you think QSC amps
are sexy, Arns, but not many would agree with you.

> > Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?
>
> Except of course, everything doesn't sound the same except perhaps according
> to their vinyl noise and tube distortion deafened ears.

Nice! You were able to insult anybody who likes listening to vinyl or
tubes! And that wasn't even the topic!

You are The Master of ridicule. You have destroyed audio discussion on
this group. Who, for example, wants to "admit" to liking the sound of
tubes or vinyl, for example, and face the crap you poop on the group
in response? I remember when I was first here I mentioned that I own
several thousand LPs. I explained why I listen to them, which was a
logical decision. I did not claim that they "sounded better", nor did
I make any other claim. Yet I became a "vinyl bigot" and I was
ridiculed by you. There wasn't even a cue for this attack on
preference. You just regurgitated it out of habit, I suppose. Who
wants to admit to being so stupid as to buy an overpriced Krell amp?

Too bad 2pid is too dumb to see that..

> We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.
>
> Why gild lillies? Why beat dead horses?

Why not? It's a hobby. People can do as they wish, hopefully without
fear of attack.

> >Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.
>
> Only if you ignore the serious audible problems with recording, microphones,
> playback,

Try a recording group, Arns. Several exist and I'm sure they'll
welcome your 'expertise'. Most audio hobbyists are not interested in
music production. That's a separate discipline.

> rooms, and loudspeakers.

As I said: everything else is 'solved'. The room can be treated to an
extent, but often the only recourse is a different room, so all we are
really left with to discuss is speakers. So can we assume that you'll
stay out of any discussion not concerning speakers, or will you
continue to ridicule those who have different preferences?

Maybe you could come up with a FAQ: Here is what is OK, here is what
makes you an idiot.

> > Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
> > stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.
>
> ???????????

It was sarcasm, Arns. There, there, everything will be OK...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 8:59 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 23 Oct, 08:17, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
> > instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
> > the better game.
>
> Arny keeps score when listening to music.
> For the previous symphony, the Violins beat the Bassoons
> 24-7

> > The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
> > gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
> > experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.
>
> Arny got 4 miles per measure!!!

LOL

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JimC wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>> JimC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
>>> the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
>>> have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
>>> listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
>>> "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>>
>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
>>> And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>>> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>>> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>>> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>>> acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
>>> original vision."
>>
>> How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?

>
> In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?


I find Mr. Holt's remarks arrogant and frustrating.


For example, this comment below from him is so meaningless and
non-sensical that I wonder if his internal organs has begun to self-digest
his own brain in lieu of his advancing age.


"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."


He seems to correlate personal taste as a means to put an end to
audio advancement. Only someone with 2 ounce waffle-head like
Howard Ferstler would make that type of pronouncement. Perhaps
Mr. Ferstler paid him a visit and put his tools to good use.

I apologes about my comment with regard to his head though, it's one
of those spur of the moment deals.

In any case, you did share an interest with regards to what we think
about Mr. Holt's commentary.


> Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
> and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?
>
> Jim


I remain interested hearing your views, Mr. Cate, but in order to see
that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask of you to clarify
what
you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty' control with regards
specifically to double blind testing as you have qouted above.

How does this test maintain honesty and credibility in
high-end audio ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> JimC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
>>> the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
>>> have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
>>> listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
>>> "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>>
>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
>>> And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>>> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>>> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>>> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>>> acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
>>> original vision."
>
>> How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?
>
> Why don't you ask him, Borglet?
>
> Oh, I forgot you are not important enough for Holt to bother with.
>
> Sorry!


Well, you're saying that he feels so high and mighty and he expressed
himself well concerning his views on audio testing.

If you ever come accross the red carpet he walks on, tell him the buck
stops here.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JimC wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?
>
> So you need translation of JBorgs words too...
> Middiot's supposedly good at translating...give him the job.
>
> ScottW


I understand that this is a delicate time as exacerbated by flying
embers down there in SoCal for you but when it comes to audio
testing, don't forget, you remain a no-show. How else can one
lucidly say this to you ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> JimC wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>>>>> JimC wrote:
>>
>>
>> I remain interested hearing your views, Mr. Cate, but in order to see
>> that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask of you to
>> clarify what you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty' control
>> with regards specifically to double blind testing as you have qouted
>> above. How does this test maintain honesty and credibility in
>> high-end audio ?
>
> I think this lyric is appropriate....


But you seems to forgot to add the title.


> I Have NO Money, My Mouth is Drooling, Brother! Lend Me Your Comb


> So tired of the straight line, and everywhere you turn
> There's vultures and thieves at your back
> The storm keeps on twisting, you keep on building the lies
> That you make up for all that you lack
> It don't make no difference, escaping one last time
> It's easier to believe
> In this sweet madness, oh this glorious sadness
> That brings me to my knees
>
> ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think this lyric is appropriate....
>>
>>
>> But you seems to forgot to add the title.
>>
>>
>>> I Have NO Money, My Mouth is Drooling, Brother! Lend Me Your Comb
>
> I've still got hair, what a relief.
> What have you got? Double twisted helix power cables?
>
> ScottW

I've got aftermarket power cables that made my system sound better.
You, otoh, got hair, Fleas and Aphids living in harmony on top of
your head, what a relish.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JimC wrote:
> >
>>
>>
>>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
>>>> in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
>>>> which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
>>>> blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
>>>> used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>
>>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
>>>> likes." And
>>>> since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
>>>> it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
>>>> different people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning
>>>> the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of
>>>> voodoo science, were
>>>> not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>>
>>>> Further:
>
>>>> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
>>>> credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
>>>> the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
>>>> example)
>>>> that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
>>>> Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
> progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
> standards.



NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented self..


Any questions ?

Have a nice day.










> snip.

[nebulax]

On Oct 22, 6:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
>
> Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?
> We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.
> Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.
>
> So what are you bitching about?


QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
too.

[George M. Middius]

nebulax said:

> QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
> They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
> too.

Sound quality is irrelevant in the world of aBxism.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 06:08, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> nebulax said:
>
> > QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
> > They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
> > too.
>
> Sound quality is irrelevant in the world of aBxism.

all you need to know is the score and MPG

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
et...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> JimC wrote:
>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
>>>>> in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
>>>>> which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
>>>>> blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
>>>>> used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>>
>>>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
>>>>> likes." And
>>>>> since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
>>>>> it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
>>>>> different people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning
>>>>> the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of
>>>>> voodoo science, were
>>>>> not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>>>
>>>>> Further:
>>
>>>>> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
>>>>> credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
>>>>> the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
>>>>> example)
>>>>> that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
>>>>> Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>>
>> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
>> progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
>> standards.

> NO.

> That is wrong.
> It is incorrect.
> That is not the key.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

> All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
> self..

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures to
objective
standards is to take ego out of it.

The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
so" is entirely about ego.

> Any questions ?

Indeed borglet, your whole response is about your ego.

> Have a nice day.

Borglet, watching you contradict yourself again does make a nice day in
away, except it must really suck being you! My regrets. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> > > On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
>> > >> > As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
>> > >> > in the
>> > >> > December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
>> > >> > have
>> > >> > entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
>> > >> > listening
>> > >> > comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
>> > >> > fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>
>> > >> > "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
>> > >> > likes."
>> > >> > And
>> > >> > since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
>> > >> > it,
>> > >> > that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
>> > >> > different
>> > >> > people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the
>> > >> > acoustical
>> > >> > instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo
>> > >> > science,
>> > >> > were
>> > >> > not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>>
>> > >> > Further:
>> > >> > "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
>> > >> > its
>> > >> > credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
>> > >> > the
>> > >> > kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
>> > >> > example)
>> > >> > that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
>> > >> > Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>>
>> > Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress
>> > is
>> > comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

>> In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
>> is involved.

Actually, preservation of the ego is a basic survival need.

>> I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
>> and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
>> "Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!"

Sorry, but 12 inches is an objective measure.

>> Her
>> husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well.

Yes, they go faster, corner better, and accellerate better than a very high
percentage of all automobiles on the road - as measured by objective means.

>> Their decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
>> other *objective* measurement.

Since the superior performance of vehicles in this class is well known, it
is irrational to claim that this had nothing to do with the purchase
decision. How many people who own supercars obtained them in order to have
poorer performance than a Yugo?

>> Aren't they stupid?

The assertions that have been presented so far are pretty stupid. Anybody
who believes this kind of posturing is stupid.

> Not necessarily. But they have a lot of specific excess wealth. And
> it is a fact the Ferrari and Lamborghini are not very good cars in
> some ways. Traditionally reliability of both was poor.

At some point in the ladder of ascending performance, reliability becomes
less important. Nobody buys Ferraris because they have 12,000 mile oil
change intervals, for example. ;-)

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> JimC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
>>>>>> in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
>>>>>> which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
>>>>>> blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
>>>>>> used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by
>>>>>> Mr.Holt:
>>>>
>>>>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
>>>>>> likes." And
>>>>>> since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>>>>>> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>>>>>> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>>>>>> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>>>>>> acceptance of voodoo science, were
>>>>>> not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>>>>
>>>>>> Further:
>>>
>>>>>> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
>>>>>> its credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to
>>>>>> submit to the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind
>>>>>> testing, for example)
>>>>>> that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
>>>>>> since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>>>
>>> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
>>> progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
>>> standards.
>
>> NO.
>
>> That is wrong.
>> It is incorrect.
>> That is not the key.
>
> Just saying so, does not make it so.
>
>> All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
>> self..
>
> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
> to objective standards is to take ego out of it.


These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Who determine these ?




.... off to work, be back for more later.



snip...snip..snip..

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
> so" is entirely about ego.
>

read "preference"

[George M. Middius]

Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

> Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment. That's a grand total of zero "tests" for
Yapper. Which is to say that he has yet to participate in his very first
DBT of audio gear.

Furthermore, Scottie has never witnessed a single DBT of consumer audio
gear. Nor has he learned how to design such "tests". And on top of that,
Witless isn't smart enough to understand that no DBT procedures exist
for casual use by consumers that have been proven reliable.

If anybody wanted to know what Scottie's discernment is like, they could
drop by his house and listen to his precious Quad system (assuming
there's room around the pool table in the low-ceilinged basement). Or,
failing a trip to ScottieWorld, they could inquire of certain RAOers who
have already been there and done that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:06 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > > wrote:
> >> On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> >> > > On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > >> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
> >> > >> > As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
> >> > >> > in the
> >> > >> > December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
> >> > >> > have
> >> > >> > entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
> >> > >> > listening
> >> > >> > comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
> >> > >> > fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
> >> > >> > "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
> >> > >> > likes."
> >> > >> > And
> >> > >> > since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
> >> > >> > it,
> >> > >> > that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
> >> > >> > different
> >> > >> > people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the
> >> > >> > acoustical
> >> > >> > instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo
> >> > >> > science,
> >> > >> > were
> >> > >> > not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>
> >> > >> > Further:
> >> > >> > "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
> >> > >> > its
> >> > >> > credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
> >> > >> > the
> >> > >> > kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
> >> > >> > example)
> >> > >> > that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
> >> > >> > Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> >> > Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress
> >> > is
> >> > comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.
> >> In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
> >> is involved.
>
> Actually, preservation of the ego is a basic survival need.

Therefore, according to you, high-end audio can be considered a basic
survival need.

> >> I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
> >> and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
> >> "Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!"
>
> Sorry, but 12 inches is an objective measure.

Sorry, but you're insane.

Let me spell it out, good old insane Arns: they liked one over the
other because, ITO, the seats were more comfortable in one.
"Comfortable" is not an objective measurement. Performance was not an
issue: preference was.

> >> Her
> >> husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well.
>
> Yes, they go faster, corner better, and accellerate better than a very high
> percentage of all automobiles on the road - as measured by objective means.

Who cares? The level of performance is legally limited. Around here,
you cannot go faster than 70 MPH on any Interstate, for example. I'm
not aware of speeds over 80 allowed anywhere on the Interstate system.
You can get a ticket for unnecessary acceleration. You can get a
ticket for cornering too fast.

So what you argue for is that a difference of ,000001% distortion
between units is worth it, as that can be measured by objective means.
Yay! The THD race of the 1970s is on again!

> >> Their decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
> >> other *objective* measurement.
>
> Since the superior performance of vehicles in this class is well known, it
> is irrational to claim that this had nothing to do with the purchase
> decision. How many people who own supercars obtained them in order to have
> poorer performance than a Yugo?

We're comapring two cars in the same class, Arns, and why they
preferred one over the other. Ferrari and Lamborghini do not have
large performance differences. Try to keep up.

I happen to know why they bought them. Can you say "mid-life crisis"?

> >> Aren't they stupid?
>
> The assertions that have been presented so far are pretty stupid. Anybody
> who believes this kind of posturing is stupid.

Since you apparently didn't understand the comparison, I'll let this
slide.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:00 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> it must really suck being you!

So who came up with this line first? 2pid, or good old insane Arns?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
. net...

>> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
>> to objective standards is to take ego out of it.

> Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
> frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 12:49, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

>
> If anybody wanted to know what Scottie's discernment is like, they could
> drop by his house and listen to his precious Quad system (assuming
> there's room around the pool table in the low-ceilinged basement). Or,
> failing a trip to ScottieWorld, they could inquire of certain RAOers who
> have already been there and done that.

high ceiling, upstairs, and the pool table is in the other room.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 12:46 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:ehtuh3pr4ac38qb8buetthhlnotilqkrcs@4ax .com...
>
> > Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:
>
> >> Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade
>
> > If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
> > of consumer audio equipment.
>
> I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.

What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

> > >> Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

> > > If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
> > > of consumer audio equipment.

> > I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.

> What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
> Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

Differences are for other people -- the ones who have decent hearing
acuity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 11:06 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
> >> so" is entirely about ego.
>
> > read "preference"
>
> Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
> accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
> The just left me flat.....

Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 13:02, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
>
> . net...
>
> >> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
> >> to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
> > Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
> > frequency response ?
>
> Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
> psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.
>
> Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

Plan C: anybody from Grosse Pointe Woods with a big anus.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 13:46, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:ehtuh3pr4ac38qb8buetthhlnotilqkrcs@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:
>
> >> Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade
>
> > If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
> > of consumer audio equipment.
>
> I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.
>

and demand that others go there

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

> >> > > Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:
> >
> >> > >> Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade
> >
> >> > > If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
> >> > > of consumer audio equipment.
> >
> >> > I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.
> >
> >> What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
> >> Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?
> >
> >Differences are for other people -- the ones who have decent hearing
> >acuity.
>
> Scott may suffer from 'inadvertent self influence'. Certainly what he
> says on political issues is riddled with bias. And fear. And
> prejudice.

You are correct, sir. I shouldn't harp on his stupidity all the time
when he has other faults that are just as odious.

It's still the same old multiple standard for consumer DBTs: Everybody
other than Scottie "should" be forced into the blinding rituals. The
'borgs are exempt from this obligation because they've already admitted
they can't hear any differences or don't care if they could. Scottie
probably hopes that by forcing DBTs onto unwilling Normals, we will turn
stupid like him and stop making him feel inferior.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 5:27 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

> > wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> > > > On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC > wrote:
> > > >> > As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
> > > >> > December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
> > > >> > entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
> > > >> > comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
> > > >> > fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>
> > > >> > "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
> > > >> > And
> > > >> > since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
> > > >> > that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
> > > >> > people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
> > > >> > instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
> > > >> > were
> > > >> > not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>
> > > >> > Further:
> > > >> > "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
> > > >> > credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
> > > >> > kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
> > > >> > example)
> > > >> > that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
> > > >> > Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>
> > > Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
> > > comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.
>
> > In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
> > is involved. I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
> > and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
> > "Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!" Her
> > husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well. Their
> > decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
> > other *objective* measurement.
>
> > Aren't they stupid?
>
> Not necessarily. But they have a lot of specific excess wealth. And
> it is a fact the Ferrari and Lamborghini are not very good cars in
> some ways. Traditionally reliability of both was poor.

I think that was more back in the days when a Ferrari had twelve
single-throated carburetors. Fuel injection and other advances have
made even exotic cars reliable. Not that maintaining a car like that
is cheap, but you know that going in.

But the point is, they should have bought a 1984 Ford Escort. Better
fuel efficiency, and as much performance as they really needed. They
chose their cars for different reasons, and they could afford that
choice, so what business of it is mine? He had a Gulfstream, too, the
idiot.

> > Maybe you could come up with a FAQ: Here is what is OK, here is what
> > makes you an idiot.
>
> > > > Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
> > > > stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.
>
> Actually the best speaker cable REALLY IS found at vac places
> ofttimes.

I don't doubt that at all.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 2:51 pm, Signal > wrote:

> Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?

2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot whinnied:

> >> Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?

> > 2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.

> You always to like to speak for other people?

Please print out this post of yours and tack it up on your cubicle wall.
Then the next time you gratuitously jump into a thread with one of your
quarterwit 'insults' for me or Shushie, you can reflect on your enduring
ignorance of the exalted concept of hypocrisy.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 4:11 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ooglegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 24, 2:51 pm, Signal > wrote:
>
> >> Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?
>
> > 2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.
>
> You always to like to speak for other people?

Thank you for proving the necessity of pointing out the obvious. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 16:24, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Signal" > wrote in message


>
> There's this little thing about our state and local fire
> strategy requiring requiring able bodied people abondon
> their homes to be destroyed by flying embers.....


only three abandoning people were destroyed by flying embers!!!!!

[George M. Middius]

Yapper steadfastly refuses to awaken to his problems.

> >> You always to like to speak for other people?

> > Please print out this post of yours and tack it up on your cubicle wall.
> > Then the next time you gratuitously jump into a thread with one of your
> > quarterwit 'insults' for me or Shushie,

> Poor George

Thank you for showing your (that's "you're" in ScottieSpeak) inability
to acquire even the tiniest bit of self-awareness.

[George M. Middius]

Scottie the Hapless Victim-Idiot whined:

> How much

$50,000 plus $10,000 for each year you want to wait. If you want your
conqueror to be a race other than Hispanic, that's $10,000 additional.
Condoms are your responsibility. Photos for your "wife" are also
available; cost depends on options. Finally, if you intend for this
encounter to end in you being snuffed, all the fees are doubled.

[George M. Middius]

Scottie Bum-Boy quivers in erotic anticipation.

> > Scottie the Hapless Victim-Idiot whined:

> >> How much

> > $50,000 plus $10,000 for each year you want to wait. If you want your
> > conqueror to be a race other than Hispanic, that's $10,000 additional.
> > Condoms are your responsibility. Photos for your "wife" are also
> > available; cost depends on options. Finally, if you intend for this
> > encounter to end in you being snuffed, all the fees are doubled.

> Well....thats[sic]

I'm keeping your deposit regardless, closet case.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper wriggles and writhes in shame.

> > Scottie Bum-Boy quivers in erotic anticipation.
> >
> >> > Scottie the Hapless Victim-Idiot whined:
> >
> >> >> How much
> >
> >> > $50,000 plus $10,000 for each year you want to wait. If you want your
> >> > conqueror to be a race other than Hispanic, that's $10,000 additional.
> >> > Condoms are your responsibility. Photos for your "wife" are also
> >> > available; cost depends on options. Finally, if you intend for this
> >> > encounter to end in you being snuffed, all the fees are doubled.
> >
> >> Well....thats[sic]
> >
> > I'm keeping your deposit regardless, closet case.
>
> Yeah...one of the great travesties....me paying your
> welfare.....

..................
.............
.......................
..........
......
..............

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
>>> measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
>
>> Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
>> frequency response ?
>
> Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
> psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.


I don't think so but there you go again with your delusive appeals.
A very strightforward question and the first thing you do is appease
your senility behind your ferocious superego in the name of science.

Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,
frequency response for a given audio component. They don't decide
whether that criteria had been met. They would be hapless to do so
on their own.




> Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.


That appear to be so from those that promote objective audio testing.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> Signalwrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> Signal wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> So how do you support DBTs....
>>>
>>> By saying this...they have legitimate applications in the
>>> development of audio equipment and technology..
>>
>> Nobody disagrees with that, we all "support" DBTs.
>
> Glad to hear it...JBorg is going to be heartbroken though.


You're missing the point of what was said.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
>>> progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
>>> standards.
>
>> NO.
>
>> That is wrong.
>> It is incorrect.
>> That is not the key.
>
> Just saying so, does not make it so.
>
>> All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
>> self..
>
> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures to
> objective standards is to take ego out of it.
>
> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because
> I say so" is entirely about ego.


You mention ego there quite a few times and seems to know a lot
about it. Well this has nothing to do with that, it's about immeasurable
differences.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> ScottW wrote:
>> Shhhh! wrote
>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because
>>>>> I say so" is entirely about ego.
>>>
>>>> read "preference"
>>>
>>> Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
>>> accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
>>> They just left me flat.....
>>
>> Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?
>
> No. But objectivism isn't only DBTs.
> I wouldn't know the speakers were technically flatter without
> objective measurements.
>
> ScottW



1.) And your purpose to obtain this technical information is to
ensure that you aren't delusional. What would happen if
this all-important information was never given to you
on purpose forever and after ?

2.) What was your term 'objectivism' about in this regard ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>
>
>> There's this little thing about our state and local fire
>> strategy requiring requiring able bodied people abondon
>> their homes to be destroyed by flying embers.....
>
>
> only three abandoning people were destroyed by flying embers!!!!!


A fine example of Scott's attempt in double-speak. Why don't you
just tell how close you really are from the fires.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
> >> so" is entirely about ego.
> >>
> >
> > read "preference"
>
> Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
> accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
> The just left me flat.....
>
> ScottW

Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
>>>> measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
>>
>>> Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
>>> frequency response ?
>>
>> Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
>> psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

> I don't think so but there you go again with your delusive appeals.

Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

> Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
> something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've seen them
at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked with them.


> frequency response for a given audio component.

Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric equalizers
built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency response of the
component so that system response at a variety of locations in the sound
field is optomized in accordance with their objective standard for frequency
response.


> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.

> They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
> if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?

The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl sounds
best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
tell people what sounds best.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 05:26, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> Wrong Borglet,

thank you Grand Master Borg.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 05:28, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl sounds
> best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
> tell people what sounds best.

My top notch therapist also thinks vinyl sounds best!!!!

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
>
> > Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
> > if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?
>
> The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl sounds
> best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
> tell people what sounds best.

Depends on what you're listening for, I suppose. But based on the
above, your Troll Quality Index has been lowered to 1.9 on a 5 point
scale.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
> snip...............
>
>
> Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
> scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of their
> life's avocation.


I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
have studied acoustics .

>> Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
>> something has met the objective standard for, as an example,
>
> Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
> seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
> with them.
>> frequency response for a given audio component.
>
> Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
> equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
> response of the component so that system response at a variety of
> locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
> objective standard for frequency response.


If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?



>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>
> They surely do.
>
>
>> They would be hapless to do so on their own.
>
> They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.



1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
hear things differently.

2.) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> Shhhh! wrote
>>>> ScottW wrote:
>>>>> Clyde Slick wrote
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers
>>>>>> because I say so" is entirely about ego.
>>>>
>>>>> read "preference"
>>>>
>>>> Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
>>>> accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
>>>> They just left me flat.....
>>>
>>> Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?
>>
>> No. But objectivism isn't only DBTs.
>> I wouldn't know the speakers were technically flatter without
>> objective measurements.
>>
>> ScottW
>
>
>
> 1.) And your purpose to obtain this technical information is to
> ensure that you aren't delusional. What would happen if
> this all-important information was never given to you
> on purpose forever and after ?
>
> 2.) What was your term 'objectivism' about in this regard ?




Score !


Full point x2.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wrong Borglet,
>
> thank you



The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
using their ears alone. May I have your point ?








> Grand Master Borg.

[Lionel]

JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong Borglet,
>> thank you
>
>
>
> The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
> which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
> using their ears alone. May I have your point ?

Yes you can. :-)

No matter that we are objectivists or subjectivists, all the "anxiety",
doubt and agitation around the quality of the restitution of the musical
message degrade dramatically our ability to receive optimally the
musical message.

This is the entropic nature of the pleasure : search and observation
tends to make it impossible to locate.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
t...



> What I gather
> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
> using their ears alone.

Borglet, your mind is gathering wool, not reliable knowledge.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 2:00 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 11:06 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> > On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >> >> The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I
> >> >> say
> >> >> so" is entirely about ego.
>
> >> > read "preference"
>
> >> Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
> >> accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
> >> They just left me flat.....
>
> > Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?
>
> No. But objectivism isn't only DBTs.
> I wouldn't know the speakers were technically flatter without
> objective measurements.

I don't know of anybody who is against factories plugging things into
a scope to determine the operating parameters of a piece of equipment,
or measuring their performance. Spec sheets would be pretty useless
without them. The final arbitor, however, is what sounds good to a
particular person, regardless of the measurements.

I'm not even opposed to DBTs. I don't know how else a designer might
determine if a new CODEC works properly, for example. I do see it as a
tool for either scientific R&D or at the factory level. It's the
constant drumbeat of "unless you do you DBTs you are either ignorant
or a bigot" that saps interest in talking about audio on RAO for me.
And we know who says that...;-)

So are there actually people here who oppose any measurements of audio
gear?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Lionel wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong Borglet,
>>>
>>> thank you
>>
>>
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
>> which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>> using their ears alone. May I have your point ?
>
> Yes you can. :-)
>
> No matter that we are objectivists or subjectivists, all the "anxiety",
> doubt and agitation around the quality of the restitution of the musical
> message degrade dramatically our ability to receive optimally the musical
> message without drinking a tall glass of Pepsi Cola first.



> This is the entropic nature of the pleasure : search and observation

during deebeetee

> tends to make it impossible to locate.

subtle differences



Agreed.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
>
>> What I gather
>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>> using their ears alone.
>
> Borglet, your mind is gathering wool, not reliable knowledge.


Talk is cheap.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 6:07 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
>
> t...
>
> > What I gather
> > so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
> > whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
> > using their ears alone.
>
> Borglet, your mind is gathering wool, not reliable knowledge.

I kind of like music. What have you been listening to recently, Arns?
Was the recording satisfacory? Did it give you goosebumps?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Shhhh! wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>> "Shhhh! wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>> Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?
>>
>> No. But objectivism isn't only DBTs.
>> I wouldn't know the speakers were technically flatter without
>> objective measurements.
>
> I don't know of anybody who is against factories plugging things into
> a scope to determine the operating parameters of a piece of equipment,
> or measuring their performance. Spec sheets would be pretty useless
> without them. The final arbitor, however, is what sounds good to a
> particular person, regardless of the measurements.
>
> I'm not even opposed to DBTs. I don't know how else a designer might
> determine if a new CODEC works properly, for example. I do see it as a
> tool for either scientific R&D or at the factory level. It's the
> constant drumbeat of "unless you do you DBTs you are either ignorant
> or a bigot" that saps interest in talking about audio on RAO for me.
> And we know who says that...;-)
>
> So are there actually people here who oppose any measurements of audio
> gear?



None that I know. I do know that Howard Ferstler opposes comparing the
measurement of his hearing deficiencies when making comparison between
component during audio testing.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> I kind of like music. What have you been listening to recently, Arns?
> Was the recording satisfacory? Did it give you goosebumps?

Arnii has all he can handle with his mass-market goose turds:
http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/goose_poop.jpg

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 25, 4:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >,
> > Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
> > if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?
>
> The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl sounds
> best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
> tell people what sounds best.

Do you really have any questions on who has "ruined" RAO as far as
being a forum for audio discussions are concerned? Arns will tell you
what sounds best, and he'll get a shot in on something he doesn't like
even if it's not part of the discussion. Do you suppose an attitude
such as Arns displays here might blow off more newbies than my calling
you "2pid" does?

Good old insane Arns, please publish a list of what "sounds best". It
would be nice if you could break it into source, amps, preamps, cables
and wire and speakers. You could call the list "Arns' Rekommended
Komponents" (ARK). Just like the fable of the ark, you could
symbolically lift us all above eternal damnation and destruction. I
can see a pair of monoblocks and a pair of speakers boarding on the
gangway now. Save us from ourselves!

TIA!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 2:50 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > I kind of like music. What have you been listening to recently, Arns?
> > Was the recording satisfacory? Did it give you goosebumps?
>
> Arnii has all he can handle with his mass-market goose turds:http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/goose_poop.jpg

Speaking of Arns, have you seen the movie "Running with Scissors"?

There's a character in it who analyzes his poop for signs from God
Almighty. One turd was so revealing he had his wife pluck it from the
toilet to dry in the sun so they could build a shrine. I wonder: was
the character based on good old insane Arns?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > > I kind of like music. What have you been listening to recently, Arns?
> > > Was the recording satisfacory? Did it give you goosebumps?

> > Arnii has all he can handle with his mass-market goose turds:http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/goose_poop.jpg

> Speaking of Arns, have you seen the movie "Running with Scissors"?
> There's a character in it who analyzes his poop for signs from God
> Almighty. One turd was so revealing he had his wife pluck it from the
> toilet to dry in the sun so they could build a shrine. I wonder: was
> the character based on good old insane Arns?

I didn't see it, but now I know where a recent episode of South Park
began. All hail Arnii Kroo****, 'Borg King of the Turds!

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey croaked:

> For many in audio the objective is to get as close as possible to recreating
> sound of a live performance.

You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:7im4i3lf4lumg2scm41tvri200uo4jlvl1@4ax .com...

> > duh-Mikey croaked:
>
> >> For many in audio the objective is to get as close as possible to recreating
> >> sound of a live performance.
>
> > You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.
>
> So WTF cares Middiot you pathetic greasy stain on the
> shorts of RAO?
>
> Leave people alone to have their say in peace.
>
> Can't anyone just have their say without you
> sliming them?
>
> Same crap...again and again and again.
> You're disgusting you pestilence.

But he's talking to nob.

[George M. Middius]

Poor, pathetic Witlessmongrel snarls and yaps at the bogeys.

> >> > You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.

> >> Same crap...again and again and again.

> > But he's talking to nob.

> I don't freaking care who he's talking to.

This exchange highlights one of the basic differences between you and
Normal people, Scooter: You try to deny the reality of qualtitative
distinctions. You, like your brethren duh-Mikey McBugEater, are inferior
creatures, detours in the evolutionary highway. We Normal people recognize
that your yapping is worth only a small fraction of the thoughts of
somebody somebody like Jenn or Sander or John. Similarly, duh-Mikey is an
incorrigible Kroopologist, a halfwit, a snarly cesspool of vitriol. Hence,
it's righteous and reasonable to downgrade his whining to the level of
something you scrape off your shoe. Well, not your shoe, of course,
because you can't tell the difference between street mud and the wisdom
that separates proles from leaders.

We who inhabit the ethereal plane whose existence is a dark mystery to you
have every right to smack down the lower orders when they make too much
noise in our libraries and citadels. We have every right to throw you and
duh-Mikey out with the garbage, for to us, you are little more than such.

Now do us all a favor and climb into your garbage can, then close it over
your head.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> wrote:


MCKELVY ??


UUhh Waaaa HAHAHAHAHAhahahah hahaha

YOu darn piece of WORK hahahahahah !!

BWAHHH HAHahahahah


LoL !!


....<busy right right now..>







McKelvy .... HAHAHAhahahahah


HAHAHahahahah hahhahahahahhahhhhhhh

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 26, 8:49 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in glegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 25, 4:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
> >> > if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?
>
> >> The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl sounds
> >> best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
> >> tell people what sounds best.
>
> > Do you really have any questions on who has "ruined" RAO as far as
> > being a forum for audio discussions are concerned?
>
> Look at Middiots recent blast against microsoft...someone you
> apparently know?

Of course. That's nob. I welcomed him back earlier.

> > Arns will tell you
> > what sounds best, and he'll get a shot in on something he doesn't like
> > even if it's not part of the discussion. Do you suppose an attitude
> > such as Arns displays here might blow off more newbies than my calling
> > you "2pid" does?
>
> People can get used to Arny and take him or leave him....
> if you can't it say as much about you as it does him..

Why does this not then apply to George?

I find much of what he says very funny.

> But the worst is that some of you use Arny as an excuse to leave
> all decorum at the door.

"Decorum"? LOL!

Do you get up on a chair if there's a mouse in the room?

> > Good old insane Arns, please publish a list of what "sounds best".

> Hey ...you're drifting Trooper.....

Oh, no. We need him to constantly remind us of what sounds good and
what sounds bad. I think "ARK" is a wonderful idea. It would be a
helpful. positive use of his talents. Plus, he could do DBTs all day
long. Maybe he could even get you or nob to help him, as it appears
that neither of you has done one.

Arns could have three categories: "Broken" "Flawed" and "Greatly
Overpriced, but No Audible Difference" (GONAD). I can see the cover
now: "In This Issue: We Discuss Two GONAD components!" Just imagine
the ad revenue pouring in from Lowe's and Home Depot and K-Mart and
WalMart. This could make good old insane Arns millions!

[Lionel]

JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong Borglet,
>>>> thank you
>>>
>>>
>>> The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
>>> which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
>>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>>> using their ears alone. May I have your point ?
>> Yes you can. :-)
>>
>> No matter that we are objectivists or subjectivists, all the "anxiety",
>> doubt and agitation around the quality of the restitution of the musical
>> message degrade dramatically our ability to receive optimally the musical
>> message without drinking a tall glass of Pepsi Cola first.
>
>
>
>> This is the entropic nature of the pleasure : search and observation
>
> during deebeetee
>
>> tends to make it impossible to locate.
>
> subtle differences
>
>
>
> Agreed.

Why are you seriously waiting intelligent answers to a stupid problem ?
Time to waste ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> someone@micrsoft wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> JimC wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes
>>>>>>>> published in the December Stereophile, audio developments in
>>>>>>>> recent years, which have entailed the discarding of objective
>>>>>>>> standards such as blind listening comparisons, have in some
>>>>>>>> respects reduced what used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo
>>>>>>>> science. As stated by Mr.Holt:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
>>>>>>>> likes." And
>>>>>>>> since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
>>>>>>>> likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
>>>>>>>> because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
>>>>>>>> Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
>>>>>>>> acceptance of voodoo science, were
>>>>>>>> not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Further:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
>>>>>>>> its credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to
>>>>>>>> submit to the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind
>>>>>>>> blind testing, for example)
>>>>>>>> that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
>>>>>>>> since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]
>>>>>
>>>>> Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
>>>>> progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to
>>>>> objective standards.
>>>
>>>> NO.
>>>
>>>> That is wrong.
>>>> It is incorrect.
>>>> That is not the key.
>>>
>>> Just saying so, does not make it so.
>>>
>>>> All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your
>>>> demented self..
>>>
>>> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
>>> measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
>>
>>
>> These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
>> Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
>> frequency response ?
>>
>> Who determine these ?
>
>
> They are determined by doing measurements and in knowing what the
> objective is.


Please answer the question.




> For many in audio the objective is to get as close as possible to
> recreating sound of a live performance.
> In other cases where there was no real live performance the objective
> is likely to be to get as close as possible to the sound of the
> master tape. Trying to turn the sound of a master tape into a live
> performance is an excercise in creating an illusion that one finds
> pleasureable, but that's true of any playback don't you think?


Yes, IMO, music reproduction is art based on knowledge of science
and technique.



> At least one objective standard is comparing the measurements of the
> signal going in to the system with the signal coming out of the
> system before it gets to the speakers. If it is low enough in
> measurable distortions, then it can be said to adhere to a standard
> of accuracy.

And who determine when it can be said that the signal adhere to the
objective standard of accuracy ?


> Once it get to the speakers all bets are off, since
> there are no speakers I know of that are as accurate as even medium
> priced electronics.


Oh-uh.


Now WHO should determine the objective standard of accuracy for
speakers ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> someone@micrsoft wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong Borglet,
>>>
>>> thank you
>>
>>
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
>> which will sound good and which will not.
>
> But that was not what you said at first.


You got to be joshing your self.


> What I gather
>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>> using their ears alone. May I have your point ?
>
>
> Accurate FR can't be accurately judged by ear alone. It may come
> close sometimes, but it will be influenced by factors having nothing
> to do with sound, this is why measurments are made.


If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
Frequency Response then, how could Arny decide using his ears
alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
frequency response ?


Is using his ears important or not ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> someone@micrsoft wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What I gather
>>>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>>>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>>>> using their ears alone.
>>>
>>> Borglet, your mind is gathering wool, not reliable knowledge.
>>
>>
>> Talk is cheap.
>>
> Can I buy back my introduction to you?


No. No.

The question is: how cheap are your point worth this time.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>> Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
>> equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
>> response of the component so that system response at a variety of
>> locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
>> objective standard for frequency response.
>
>
> If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
> certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
> incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?
>
>
>
>>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>>
>> They surely do.
>>
>>
>>> They would be hapless to do so on their own.
>>
>> They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.
>
>
>
> 1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
> hear things differently.
>
> 2.) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
> and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
> hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?



Score !


Full point x3.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
> Why are you seriously waiting intelligent answers to a stupid problem
> ? Time to waste ?


Are saying that Arny and ScottW had been providing unintelligent answers
in this thread ?

[Lionel]

JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Why are you seriously waiting intelligent answers to a stupid problem
>> ? Time to waste ?
>
>
> Are saying that Arny and ScottW had been providing unintelligent answers
> in this thread ?

And that you don't help them putting a stupid question.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> duh-Mikey croaked:
>
>> For many in audio the objective is to get as close as possible to recreating
>> sound of a live performance.
>
> You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.

His/her contributor surname is :

*

You stupid subhuman ! :o)

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
et...

> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
> Frequency Response then,

My ears+bran do two things pretty well:

(1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so that they
sound good to a wide variety of people.

(2) Detect deviations from non-flat frequency response, particularly when a
reference with flat frequency response is provided.

These are both good skills for a recordist or live sound technican to have.

> how could Arny decide using his ears
> alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
> frequency response?

I'm way too smart and resourceful to rely on just my own ears.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>
>>
>> snip...............
>>
>>
>> Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
>> scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of
>> their life's avocation.

> I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
> have studied acoustics .

What about psychoacoustics?

>>> Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
>>> something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

>> Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
>> seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
>> with them, adjusting and evaluating the frequency response for a given
>> audio component.

>> Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
>> equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
>> response of the component so that system response at a variety of
>> locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
>> objective standard for frequency response.

>
> If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
> certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
> incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?

Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble audio
systems, and play them in specific rooms.

>>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>>
>> They surely do.
>>
>>
>>> They would be hapless to do so on their own.
>>
>> They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.

<obviously over the borglet's head, since he has no response>


> 1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
> hear things differently.

A blind alley.

(2) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
> and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
> hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?

How kind of you borglet to make up a pack of lies and then tell me its what
I believe!

[Clyde Slick]

On 27 Oct, 07:14, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

>
> My ears+bran do two things pretty well:
>

1) create a great source of wax

2) keep your turds from being too loose.

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

>Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
>accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
>The just left me flat.....

Of course, that does not mean that *all* "technically accurate"
systems would leave you flat - just the ones that you've heard.

I've also heard speakers that seemed pretty flat, FR wise, but also
had the dynamics designed out of them. Some B&W and Dynaudio speakers
come to mind (although, admittedly, I was not auditioning their
higher-end models).

I believe that designing a speaker that is accurate yet dynamic, and
detailed yet not harsh, are the great challenges in speaker design
(sorta obvious, I guess).

[dizzy]

ScottW wrote:

>I've heard more technically
>accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
>The just left me flat.....

I should also note that a lot of accurate systems suffer because most
people, like it or not, prefer more bass than is on the recording. A
quick turn of a bass-control knob can turn a thin sound into a rich,
involving sound. People with speakers that tend toward the bassy do
not need this as much, of course, but flat speakers played flat
generally sound bad, IM, and most people's, O.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 11:52 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 8:49 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> glegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 25, 4:28 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Agreed. I agree with much of what JGH said, but the bottom line is that
> >> >> > if it doesn't sound good to you, what's the point?
>
> >> >> The point is that if you are so delusional that you think that vinyl
> >> >> sounds
> >> >> best, you need a good psychological therapist before you start trying to
> >> >> tell people what sounds best.
>
> >> > Do you really have any questions on who has "ruined" RAO as far as
> >> > being a forum for audio discussions are concerned?
>
> >> Look at Middiots recent blast against microsoft...someone you
> >> apparently know?
>
> > Of course. That's nob. I welcomed him back earlier.
>
> >> > Arns will tell you
> >> > what sounds best, and he'll get a shot in on something he doesn't like
> >> > even if it's not part of the discussion. Do you suppose an attitude
> >> > such as Arns displays here might blow off more newbies than my calling
> >> > you "2pid" does?
>
> >> People can get used to Arny and take him or leave him....
> >> if you can't it say as much about you as it does him..
>
> > Why does this not then apply to George?
>
> Because his vendetta's extend beyond threads to
> relentless harrassments.

So you can ignore somebody you consider vile only in *some* contexts.
If IYO they are obnoxious within a thread, that's OK. If IYO they are
obnoxious outside a thread, they cannot be ignored.

Is that about it?

> > I find much of what he says very funny.
>
> Welcome to rec.childish.insults.

Welcome to rec.OT.political.propaganda.

> >> But the worst is that some of you use Arny as an excuse to leave
> >> all decorum at the door.
>
> > "Decorum"? LOL!
>
> > Do you get up on a chair if there's a mouse in the room?
>
> Silly response. I think you've lost the value of civil behavior.

The Usenet has never been for the fainthearted.

> >> > Good old insane Arns, please publish a list of what "sounds best".
>
> >> Hey ...you're drifting Trooper.....
>
> > Oh, no. We need him to constantly remind us of what sounds good and
> > what sounds bad.
>
> I prefer his audio opinion even laced with his obnoxious condescension
> to the usual barrage of childish ridicule.

Your preference noted. You're not a vinyl bigot too, are you?

> Maybe I'm just not so easily amused as some.

No, but you're more terrified than most.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 1:35 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "dizzy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > ScottW wrote:
>
> >> >>I've heard more technically
> >> >>accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
> >> >>The just left me flat.....
>
> >> > I should also note that a lot of accurate systems suffer because most
> >> > people, like it or not, prefer more bass than is on the recording. A
> >> > quick turn of a bass-control knob can turn a thin sound into a rich,
> >> > involving sound. People with speakers that tend toward the bassy do
> >> > not need this as much, of course, but flat speakers played flat
> >> > generally sound bad, IM, and most people's, O.
>
> >> I've been spending most of my time tweaking my sub trying to
> >> get flatter bass response from my system.
> >> It isn't an easy task.
> >> My next step after adding a Paradigm X-30 and not
> >> being all that happy with the results
> >> would be to try a Velodyne SMS-1
>
> >>http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/SMSsheets.pdf
>
> >> Anybody here familiar with it?
> >> I'd like to hear your comments.
>
> > Haven't heard that one, but maybe you could look into the Martin-Logan
> > subs. One would hope they have solutions for similar integration
> > problems. There's a new servo model, too, the Grotto.
>
> I took a look and room correction does not appear available.
> I wouldn't say my desire is so much "integration" as it is
> room correction though the line between the two is a big
> fat grey one.

How is your bass "not flat"? Is the bass attenuated? Have you
considered a Helmholtz resonator or other room treatment? The sub
itself may not matter if the room is the problem.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 27, 4:18 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in

> > How is your bass "not flat"?
>
> + 6 -10 db from 30 to 125 hz.
>
> > Is the bass attenuated?
>
> At some freqs...yes.
>
> > Have you
> > considered a Helmholtz resonator or other room treatment?
>
> Yes...that's a very long trial and error and my current measurement
> ability is insufficient to even begin to make a decent design
> requirement estimate. Warbles and a SPL meter don't really
> do the job.
> That's one nice aspect of the SMS...I hope.

How about trying a real-time analyzer? I haven't looked recently, but
it seems you could pick one up pretty cheaply. Some come with pink/
white noise generators and calibrated microphones. It seems to me
isolating the frequencies that are creating anomalies is more critical
than a new sub, and the RTA (one "good enough" to do the job) is
likely less than the sub would be anyway.

Back in my band days, playing different rooms all the time, it
would've been a nightmare without one. We were more worried about
feedback, of course. I think EQs are pretty worthless without one, at
least in a SR environment. A quick search showed this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Peavey-Autograph-EQ-Real-Time-Analyzer-No-Reserve_W0QQitemZ280164518968QQihZ018QQcategoryZ23 788QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Definitely not top-end, but cheap enough, and maybe helpful. Rane and
other SR/live music companies like DOD probably also have them.

> > The sub
> > itself may not matter if the room is the problem.
>
> Sub has plenty of output to overcome the nulls and I can
> bring any single frequency in line but lack the equalizer to
> do so over the band. The SMS looks like a good
> solution. Have you ever heard or tried one?

No. Personally I'd be more interested in isolating the source of the
issue first. Is it for sure the sub, or is it the room? As I said, IMO
you could just be trading issues if it's the room.

I'd go for the objective data.;-)

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
>> Frequency Response then,
>
> My ears+bran do two things pretty well:
>
> (1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so that
> they sound good to a wide variety of people.


If you cannot judge the accuracy of FR using your ears alone,
how are you able to ensure that it will sound good to variety of people
not having the ability to use your ears and hearing it first for yourself ?


What is bran, btw.



> (2) Detect deviations from non-flat frequency response, particularly
> when a reference with flat frequency response is provided.


The question regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.



> These are both good skills for a recordist or live sound technican to
> have.


The issue regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.



>> how could Arny decide using his ears
>> alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
>> frequency response?
>
>
> I'm way too smart and resourceful to rely on just my own ears.



Okey.



Is using your ears important or not ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> snip...............
>>>
>>>
>>> Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
>>> scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of
>>> their life's avocation.
>
>> I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
>> have studied acoustics .
>
> What about psychoacoustics?


I am 100% confident that there are Engineers and scientists who
have studied psychoacoustic also.


>>>> Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
>>>> something has met the objective standard for, as an example,
>
>>> Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
>>> seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
>>> with them, adjusting and evaluating the frequency response for a
>>> given audio component.
>
>>> Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
>>> equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
>>> response of the component so that system response at a variety of
>>> locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
>>> objective standard for frequency response.
>
>>
>> If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
>> certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
>> incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?
>
> Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble audio
> systems, and play them in specific rooms.


If the standards are not automatically met, why do Scientist and
engineers incorporate and use parametric EQ ?

Who decides and determine the standard of accuracy in the
case above ?




>>>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>>>
>>> They surely do.
>>>
>>>> They would be hapless to do so on their own.
>>>
>>> They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.
>
> <obviously over the borglet's head, since he has no response>


Okey, they do it as part of the team.


Btw, their = plural possessive, they = plural nominative.



>> 1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
>> hear things differently.
>
> A blind alley.

Aren't there engineers and scientists who have studied psychoacoustic,
for example?




> (2) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
>> and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
>> hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?
>
> How kind of you borglet to make up a pack of lies and then tell me
> its what I believe!

The last sentence in #2 was misplaced, that's all.

(But we hear things differently.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 12:34 am, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:

> What is bran, btw.

I hear it helps relieve constipation.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>





>>>>
>>>>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>>>>
>>>> They surely do.
>>>>
>>>>> They would be hapless to do so on their own.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.
>>
>> <obviously over the borglet's head, since he has no response>
>
>
> Okey, they do it as part of the team.
>
>
> Btw, their = plural possessive, they = plural nominative.



Sorry, forgot to add. No need to confused yourself more that
necessary.

Unless you can prove that scientist and engineer can "determine"
the standard for accuracy by measuring it "themselves", they
cannot "decide".


You loose.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> someone@micrsoft wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong Borglet,
>>>>
>>>> thank you
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
>>> which will sound good and which will not.
>>
>> But that was not what you said at first.
>
>
> You got to be joshing your self.
>
>
>> What I gather
>>> so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
>>> whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
>>> using their ears alone. May I have your point ?
>>
>>
>> Accurate FR can't be accurately judged by ear alone. It may come
>> close sometimes, but it will be influenced by factors having nothing
>> to do with sound, this is why measurments are made.
>
>
> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
> Frequency Response then, how could Arny decide using his ears
> alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
> frequency response ?
>
>
> Is using his ears important or not ?


Score !


Full point.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> someone@micrsoft wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
>>>> measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
>>> Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
>>> frequency response ?
>>>
>>> Who determine these ?
>>
>> They are determined by doing measurements and in knowing what the
>> objective is.
>
> Please answer the question.
>
>> For many in audio the objective is to get as close as possible to
>> recreating sound of a live performance.
>> In other cases where there was no real live performance the objective
>> is likely to be to get as close as possible to the sound of the
>> master tape. Trying to turn the sound of a master tape into a live
>> performance is an excercise in creating an illusion that one finds
>> pleasureable, but that's true of any playback don't you think?
>
> Yes, IMO, music reproduction is art based on knowledge of science
> and technique.
>
>> At least one objective standard is comparing the measurements of the
>> signal going in to the system with the signal coming out of the
>> system before it gets to the speakers. If it is low enough in
>> measurable distortions, then it can be said to adhere to a standard
>> of accuracy.
>
> And who determine when it can be said that the signal adhere to the
> objective standard of accuracy ?
>
>
>> Once it get to the speakers all bets are off, since
>> there are no speakers I know of that are as accurate as even medium
>> priced electronics.
>
>
> Oh-uh.
>
>
> Now WHO should determine the objective standard of accuracy for
> speakers ?



Score !


Full points.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
et...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
>>> Frequency Response then,
>>
>> My ears+brain do two things pretty well:
>>
>> (1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so that
>> they sound good to a wide variety of people.

> If you cannot judge the accuracy of FR using your ears alone,
> how are you able to ensure that it will sound good to variety of people
> not having the ability to use your ears and hearing it first for yourself
> ?

I ask my listeners how they like what they hear.

>> (2) Detect deviations from non-flat frequency response, particularly
>> when a reference with flat frequency response is provided.

> The question regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.

You're not communicating Borglet, you are just stringing words together.

>> These are both good skills for a recordist or live sound technican to
>> have.

> The issue regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.

Now you're echoing nonsensical strings of words, Borglet.

>>> how could Arny decide using his ears
>>> alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
>>> frequency response?

>> I'm way too smart and resourceful to rely on just my own ears.

> Is using your ears important or not ?

Say what?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 28, 10:06 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in oglegroups.com...

> > On Oct 27, 4:18 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>
> >> > How is your bass "not flat"?
>
> >> + 6 -10 db from 30 to 125 hz.
>
> >> > Is the bass attenuated?
>
> >> At some freqs...yes.
>
> >> > Have you
> >> > considered a Helmholtz resonator or other room treatment?
>
> >> Yes...that's a very long trial and error and my current measurement
> >> ability is insufficient to even begin to make a decent design
> >> requirement estimate. Warbles and a SPL meter don't really
> >> do the job.
> >> That's one nice aspect of the SMS...I hope.
>
> > How about trying a real-time analyzer? I haven't looked recently, but
> > it seems you could pick one up pretty cheaply. Some come with pink/
> > white noise generators and calibrated microphones. It seems to me
> > isolating the frequencies that are creating anomalies is more critical
> > than a new sub, and the RTA (one "good enough" to do the job) is
> > likely less than the sub would be anyway.
>
> I'm not buying a new sub.....
> I'm looking at room correction with an RTA.

> > Back in my band days, playing different rooms all the time, it
> > would've been a nightmare without one. We were more worried about
> > feedback, of course. I think EQs are pretty worthless without one, at
> > least in a SR environment. A quick search showed this:
>
> >http://cgi.ebay.com/Peavey-Autograph-EQ-Real-Time-Analyzer-No-Reserve...
>
> > Definitely not top-end, but cheap enough, and maybe helpful. Rane and
> > other SR/live music companies like DOD probably also have them.
>
> >> > The sub
> >> > itself may not matter if the room is the problem.
>
> >> Sub has plenty of output to overcome the nulls and I can
> >> bring any single frequency in line but lack the equalizer to
> >> do so over the band. The SMS looks like a good
> >> solution. Have you ever heard or tried one?
>
> > No. Personally I'd be more interested in isolating the source of the
> > issue first. Is it for sure the sub, or is it the room?
>
> I already know its the room...and as rooms go..it isn't too
> bad to require additional treatments.
>
> > As I said, IMO
> > you could just be trading issues if it's the room.
>
> > I'd go for the objective data.;-)
>
> Sigh.....go back and look at the SMS-1
>
> http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/SMSsheets.pdf

My apologies. I did not see that the SMS has a built-in RTA. I was
more interested in why a sub would be that all over the map.

That looks like it could be a good solution.

[George M. Middius]

Poor, pathetic Witlessmongrel snarls and yaps at the bogeys.

> >> > You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.

> >> Same crap...again and again and again.

> > But he's talking to nob.

> I don't freaking care who he's talking to.

This exchange highlights one of the basic differences between you and
Normal people, Scooter: You try to deny the reality of qualitative
distinctions. You, like your brethren duh-Mikey McBugEater, are inferior
creatures, detours in the evolutionary highway. We Normal people recognize
that your yapping is worth only a small fraction of the thoughts of
somebody like Jenn or Sander or John. Similarly, duh-Mikey is an
incorrigible Kroopologist, a halfwit, a snarly cesspool of vitriol. Hence,
it's righteous and reasonable to downgrade his whining to the level of
something you scrape off your shoe. Well, not your shoe, of course,
because you can't tell the difference between street mud and the wisdom
that separates proles from leaders.

We who inhabit the ethereal plane whose existence is a dark mystery to you
have every right to smack down the lower orders when they make too much
noise in our libraries and citadels of knowledge and insight. We have
every right to throw you and duh-Mikey out with the garbage, for to us,
you are little more than such.

Now do us all a favor and climb into your garbage can, then close it over
your head.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
>>>> Frequency Response then,
>>>
>>> My ears+brain do two things pretty well:
>>>
>>> (1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so
>>> that they sound good to a wide variety of people.
>
>> If you cannot judge the accuracy of FR using your ears alone,
>> how are you able to ensure that it will sound good to variety of
>> people not having the ability to use your ears and hearing it first
>> for yourself ?
>
>
> I ask my listeners how they like what they hear.

Arnii, that knucklehead of yours is truly one tough nut to crack.

You are saying that due to your inability to use your own ears, you're
going to ask a variety of listener to judge the accuracy of a component's
Frequency Response and then, ask your listeners how, of all the reasons,
how they like what they heard and whether it will sound good or not after
judging the accuracy of the said component's Frequency Response.

You suggest these to support your admission stating that,... " I'm way
too smart and resourceful to rely on just my own ears." And because, ...
" My ears+brain do two things pretty well."

That's way too modest of you !

Did you have a satisfying one-on-one chat with your pastor
today?




>>> (2) Detect deviations from non-flat frequency response, particularly
>>> when a reference with flat frequency response is provided.
>
>> The question regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.
>
> You're not communicating Borglet, you are just stringing words
> together.


Okeyy, the above and below are portion of part 1 and 2 specifics
to your ears+brain doing two things pretty well.



>>> These are both good skills for a recordist or live sound technican
>>> to have.
>
>> The issue regards your ear's ability to judge accuracy.
>
> Now you're echoing nonsensical strings of words, Borglet.
>
>>>> how could Arny decide using his ears
>>>> alone whether something will sound good because it has excellent
>>>> frequency response?
>
>>> I'm way too smart and resourceful to rely on just my own ears.
>
>> Is using your ears important or not ?
>
> Say what?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
t...
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote

>>>>> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
>>>>> Frequency Response then,

>>>> My ears+brain do two things pretty well:

>>>> (1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so
>>>> that they sound good to a wide variety of people.

>>> If you cannot judge the accuracy of FR using your ears alone,
>>> how are you able to ensure that it will sound good to variety of
>>> people not having the ability to use your ears and hearing it first
>>> for yourself ?

>> I ask my listeners how they like what they hear.

> You are saying that due to your inability to use your own ears, you're
> going to ask a variety of listener to judge the accuracy of a component's
> Frequency Response and then, ask your listeners how, of all the reasons,
> how they like what they heard and whether it will sound good or not after
> judging the accuracy of the said component's Frequency Response.

I'm not saying that at all.

[George M. Middius]

Poor, pathetic Witlessmongrel snarls and yaps at the bogeys.

> >> > You don't work at Microsoft, you lying sack of crap.

> >> Same crap...again and again and again.

> > But he's talking to nob.

> I don't freaking care who he's talking to.

This exchange highlights one of the basic differences between you and
Normal people, Scooter: You try to deny the reality of qualitative
distinctions. You, like your brethren duh-Mikey McBugEater, are inferior
creatures, detours in the evolutionary highway. We Normal people recognize
that your yapping is worth only a small fraction of the thoughts of
somebody like Jenn or Sander or John. Similarly, duh-Mikey is an
incorrigible Kroopologist, a halfwit, a snarly cesspool of vitriol. Hence,
it's righteous and reasonable to downgrade his whining to the level of
something you scrape off your shoe. Well, not your shoe, of course,
because you can't tell the difference between street mud and the wisdom
that separates proles from leaders.

We who inhabit the ethereal plane whose existence is a dark mystery to you
have every right to smack down the lower orders when they make too much
noise in our libraries and citadels of knowledge and insight. We have
every right to throw you and duh-Mikey out with the garbage, for to us,
you are little more than such.

Now do us all a favor and climb into your garbage can, then close it over
your head.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>>>>>> If Arny's ears alone cannot accurately judged the accuracy of
>>>>>> Frequency Response then,
>
>>>>> My ears+brain do two things pretty well:
>
>>>>> (1) Adjust the frequency response of sounds with an equalizer so
>>>>> that they sound good to a wide variety of people.
>
>>>> If you cannot judge the accuracy of FR using your ears alone,
>>>> how are you able to ensure that it will sound good to variety of
>>>> people not having the ability to use your ears and hearing it first
>>>> for yourself ?
>
>>> I ask my listeners how they like what they hear.
>
>> You are saying that due to your inability to use your own ears,
>> you're going to ask a variety of listener to judge the accuracy of a
>> component's Frequency Response and then, ask your listeners how, of
>> all the reasons, how they like what they heard and whether it will
>> sound good or not after judging the accuracy of the said component's
>> Frequency Response.
>
> I'm not saying that at all.


Why not just say you luv it when your cute bottom gets whip.

Now where's Ferstler ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
>
>>
>> If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
>> certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
>> incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?
>
> Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble
> audio systems, and play them in specific rooms.
>
>>>> They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.
>>>
>>> They surely do.


Now you promise to stop this nonsense ?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Oct, 00:22, "JBorg, Jr." > wrote:


>
> Why not just say you luv it when your cute bottom gets whip.
>
> Now where's Ferstler ?

attending tonight's gala wrecking ball, where the violins sit
on the right.

[George M. Middius]

Mickey McMickey dashes in to revive the the moribund Chruch of aBxism
Faith, LOt"S.

> > What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
> > Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

> Assuming they are all working properly, no difference.

Stop worshiping the Great Echidna, Mickey. You have to take your pills.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 12, 2:40 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Mickey McMickey dashes in to revive the the moribund Chruch of aBxism
> Faith, LOt"S.
>
> > > What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
> > > Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?
> > Assuming they are all working properly, no difference.
>
> Stop worshiping the Great Echidna, Mickey. You have to take your pills.

I think he needs a faster ISP. Why, I wonder, does nob need to drag up
posts from two months ago?

His bot program may be malfunctioning though. That could be it.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> > Stop worshiping the Great Echidna, Mickey. You have to take your pills.

> I think he needs a faster ISP. Why, I wonder, does nob need to drag up
> posts from two months ago?
> His bot program may be malfunctioning though. That could be it.

Could be. Retrieving posts to "answer" randomly is definitely the sign
of a decaying auto-response routine.

OTOH, Mickey could be feeling jealous at all the attention you've been
lavishing on duh-Scottie.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Dec 12, 2:53 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Stop worshiping the Great Echidna, Mickey. You have to take your pills.
> > I think he needs a faster ISP. Why, I wonder, does nob need to drag up
> > posts from two months ago?
> > His bot program may be malfunctioning though. That could be it.
>
> Could be. Retrieving posts to "answer" randomly is definitely the sign
> of a decaying auto-response routine.
>
> OTOH, Mickey could be feeling jealous at all the attention you've been
> lavishing on duh-Scottie.

I think 2pid's latest is the funniest yet in a long history of
imbecility on his part. He obviously 'thinks' he "got" me, yet he
cannot comprehend his own miscomprehension.

How come every time I think that 2pid has bottomed out, he manages to
dig himself a deeper hole?

LOL!