Bob-Stanton said:

I don't put much stock in judging amplifiers by listening tests.

How unhuman.

First of all, the word "unhuman" is not in Webster's Universal
Encyclopedic Dictionary, (of 330,000 words). The word you should have
used is "inhuman". From Webster's: "Inhuman: 1: b:COLD, IMPERSONAL.
2: of or suggesting a nonhuman class of being."

No, that's not what I meant. If you had been paying to my
scribblings on RAO over the years, you would know that "unhuman"
is a neologism I devised to describe a specific state of existence
somewhere between machine and human.

George, you know that resistance is futile.

Wait -- you have been listening after all!

Note, if you will, that I didn't call out the big gun adjective
for your pronouncement, the one I reserve for the really nasty
'borgs.


If you put a lot of stock in Arny's listening tests, do you also agree
with him that all (higher quality) amplifiers sound the same?

Krooger's listening "tests"? What are you talking about? If that's
what you meant when you devalued their stock, then forget I said
anything.

Bear in mind that RAO is a nontechnical, consumer-oriented forum.
Simply because a dolt like Krooger clomps around laying his turds
of pseudoscience at every opportunity does not mean that
"listening tests" acquire the patina of scientific investigation
as they are used in R&D. On RAO, "listening tests" (as distinct
from whatever self-defeating exercise in noise competition Krooger
likes to indulge in) are a dirty synonym for "critical listening
evaluation". No silly "test" protocols, especially highly
technical ones that are way beyond Krooger's grasp. Just listening
as carefully as you can. Because, as you know, when a consumer
buys something to use at home, his only purpose is to please
himself.