Eddie continues to flail blindly:
Are you actually saying that Arny's training program, to which the OP
referred to, solely advocate that listener simply listen to superior
playback against inferior playback system and learn from there?
No, an only an idiot would think so. It purpose is to teach you how to
listen better.
Anyway, could you please explain without sounding too evasive why you
added a buncha nonsensical, useless headers
It was an accident, sorta like you probably were.
above yet, went on to hide
and deleted a rather short and simple question I had ask previously
which is:
Do you need a training program to teach you what violins should sound
like ?
The question is stupid and you knew it when you asked it.
So that's it ? Arny's 'listening training program' consist of asking me
to sit in front of an exceptional playback system along with well
engineered musical recordings ................ and listen better?
Another admission that you don't have a ****ing clue about what you're
even discussing.
Go to the web site and see for yourself what's going on and then you
won't embarass yourself with such nonsense. Or not.
Either you and Arny are bull****ting each other or, you truly enjoy
licking your idol's butt to cover his ass.
Or you're just a ****ing idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what
listener training is about. If you did you know what the reason for it
is, to help people make better judgements about what they hear as
opposed to what they think they hear when bias is not controlled.
Harman uses it, cel phone manufacturers, like Nokia use it, hearing aid
manufacturers use it, and they do it so they can make make better
products, more accurate products.
I know all this is contrary to your preconcieved notions that bias
controlled, level matched comparisons are not neccessary, but then you
are clearly out of the audio mainstream on that issue. Those who make
a living providing accurate audio reproduction, rely on those kind of
comparisons. They do it for one reason and one reason only, THEY WORK.
|