AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Summary:

DBT and ABX have blinding in common.

This post is yet another pathetic example of how clueless
and logically-challenged Mirabel is.

The relationship between ABX and DBT is that ABX is one of
several kinds of DBTs that are used in audio.

In the set called DBT tests used in audio, ABX is one of
several proper subsets. Another well known subset of DBT
audio tests is ABC/hr.

I note with regret that instead of addressing issues you once again
choose glibness. Mainly a personal (or in your own terminology
"defamatory") attack.
Yes, ABX is "one of several Kinds" of DBT or a "subset" of DBT.
Proposed and so intended by A, Krueger. Whatever you say. Offhand I too
can propose 25 more "subsets" with nice initials. The question you
don't even attempt to address is "Has it been researched to
validate it as a test for uncovering differences between audio
components? Where? When?"
You have only yourself to blame if that leaves the fatuous "slight
forger" McKelvy as your spokesman.

Being labled a "slight forger" by a complete idiot is hardly going to
cause me to ose any sleep.

By compliant silence you endorse 1) his clumsy forgeries;eg.
attributing to me moronic views hatched in his simple brain 2)
screaming "liar" - was it nine times?- without the slightest
attempt at quoting the (nonexistant) evidence that he asserts would
refute me 3) typing "DBT" into his Google "search" and copying
the results here wholesale with no rhyme or reason in keeping with his
reading comprehension problems.

Ludo, if God himself came down from the heavens and presented you with
concrete evidence of the efficacy of Audio ABX, you'd still deny it.

Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Except for all those JAES articles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tellingly, God has failed to endorse ABX. It comes under idolatry.
I said:
If the chapel prayed and got their wish that would be the first
experimental proof of ABX validity ever.

Now NYOB:
Except for all those JAES articles

It is hard to keep one's resolve not to take any further notica
of McKelvy and his works. But his shamelessness is so staggering as to
almost evoke a perverted kind of admiration.
Here he goes again referring to "all those JAES articles". Unless there
is something very, very wrong surely he should know by now that we're
discussing the role of ABX in differentiating audio components while
reproducing music and that JAES NEVER but NEVER published articles
about component comparison.
I anticipate this multiple choice possible responses:
1 ) No quotes. Not one sentence from any article
..
2) Names of any articles ( no quotes) on any subject- except of course
audio component comparison because there aren't any- that ever
mentioned ABX-.
, Even if they said that they did not use it. .

..3) Names of any articles (no quotes of course) on any subject that
ever mention DBTs, or ABChr- even if ABX is not mentioned there at all.
Two weeks later he'll say "0ops" once more- no problem.. . .
Perhaps one should just pity him. Perhaps he really believes he's
saying something intelligible beyond: "You idiot", "You ****bag"..
Ludovic Mirabel