Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
Derrick Fawsitt wrote:
Can those apparently few people who use this Newsgroup just for matters
Audio advise me if there is a "more" appropriate newsgroup for dealing
with Audio queries ao running down the subject matter of "most" of the
posts leads me to believe that this NG is for anything and everything
except serious Audio buffs.
I do hope this post attracts those who are prepared to advise but no
doubt some people will take offence at the tenure of my remarks, I
assure you no offence is intended, I just want some loudspeaker advice
but feel from the subject matter of some of the posts I may be in the
wrong place.
--
Derrick
By now it was demonstraded to you beyond any doubt what a "serious
newsgroup" doea no look like.
Go to "www.Audio Asylum.com" The DBT discussion is banned, moderator
rejects profanity, people argue about equipment and discuss their
experience. You'll soon know who you feel deserves to be listened to.
Ludovic Mirabel
Audio Asylum is nothing if not aptly-named. And I'm pretty sure I saw Sam
Tellig calling
someone *profane* names there recently. (DBT discussion was only banned in
the cable section
last time I looked..has there been a forum-wide putsch there since?) It's
hardly the haven of
reason and civil discourse Derrick seems to seek.
If you want no-nonsense discussion of audio and audio perception -- claims
of the 'I heard a
difference therefore it is real" type are actually against its terms of
service, as are
flamewars and profanity -- try www.hydrogenaudio.org. For a pro audio
perspective , seek out
the www.prosoundweb forums or rec.audio.pro or rec.audio.tech.
www.audioholics.com also
has some very good articles on no-nonsense audio, and a pretty good and
lively forum. And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
.And of
course, there's rec.audio.high-end, every audiophool's nightmare.
And naturally Sullivan's delight He can spout there at will without
fear of contradiction. No need to take shelter in his dodge of
"killfiling" whenever the going gets too hot. The RAHE
engineer-moderator does his job for him. He hypocritically proclaimed
ban on ABX debate. This allows RAHE to post all the subtle cryptonyms
like: "Prove by a bias-free test that your impressions are real". If
one says that the bias-free."test' (read ABX) has never been validated
by experiment your retort is censored out because it is "repetitive" or
"uninteresting" or about ABX or what not. Sullivans and their clones
reign supreme there. The gagged opposition left one by one- gentle
Harry Lavo the last survivor.
There are others there who are simpatico :-)
Indeed...there always are.
These days there's almost always debate there about some *inventive*
model of audio reality that Jenn and other subjectivists have offered. Apparently
the RAHE moderator(s) are less intolerant than Dr. Mirabilis claims.
Btw, not all of my posts to RAHE are approved, either. You can bet
that when it appears I've stopped participating in a thread, it's because
I've reached the point where the mods disallowed or have asked me to rewrite a post
if I want to resubmit it. I usually find that's not worth the effort.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
Btw, not all of my posts to RAHE are approved, either. You can bet
that when it appears I've stopped participating in a thread, it's because
I've reached the point where the mods disallowed or have asked me to rewrite a post
if I want to resubmit it. I usually find that's not worth the effort.
Dear Fido
Just to remind you- there are other reasons for you to "stop
participation in a thread"
Like for instance this quote from my posting two days ago in the ":
Suggestion for Arny" thread .
"Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO
class..
I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime. It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments . If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " ( or however you want to phrase it- spare us the
nit-picking L.M.) then you perform experiments to show that. Usually
amongst the true experimental scientists you're supposed to have a
representative sample of various kinds of listeners, representative
musical samples, rigid statistical criteria and so on. But no matter. I
don't want to see you taking refuge in quibbles about wording . Your
definition, your statistics are fine.
For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works
You know that we've been that route just a few days ago (see your
November 19th posting in the "How to become life and soul...") thread"
Still waiting. Nobody is censoring you here.Fido.
Ludovic Mirabel
I"ll stop calling you Fido when you stop calling me Dr. Mirabilis. For
the time being I'm competing with you for a golden palm in idiotic
name-calling.
--