"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
This and the foloowing are the biggest batch of unmitigated bull**** I have
ever seen.
You made this up after having your ass handed to you and losing in a
discussion on why Tubed SET amps are ****, a fact which everyone but a few
idiots seems to realize.
Allegedly conducting a DBT of some sort of musicans, you were then made
aware of the fact that they tend not to hear very well.
BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer
An EE. This is true even if you don't beleive it.
or a sound recording engineer.
A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
His professional qualifications
are not known.
That is a lie.
The only known sound recording he has done is of his
local church choir, of which he sends people copies. He claims to have
special expertise in placebo tests but, again, his professional
qualification or experience is unascertainable.
Not true.
He has a self-made
netsite on which he describes his methods; they would not earn an
undergraduate a pass mark. He is widely known, to the point of
notoriety, as a Usenet flamer, that is, an unscrupulous debater who
insists on winning every argument and will resort to extreme means to
counter or suppress the views of those who disagree with him.
He insists on winning when the truth is on his side. In audio discussion,
that is nearly all the time.
Mr Krueger was warned in advance that he would be the subject of a
psychological study.
The person needing to be studied is the obviously deranged habitual liar,
Andre Jute.
THE HYPOTHESIS
That the subject Krueger has contempt for scientific method. That the
subject Krueger will use illegitimate means to win an argument. That
the subject Krueger will refuse to accept that he can be in error.
Which you failed to demonstrate, since it was not a scientific study that
was attempted.
METHODOLOGY
An article was posted to the Usenet on a subject, listener preferences
between transistor and tube audio amplifiers, on which Krueger is known
to hold strong views.
It has nothing to do with strong views, it has to do with the fact that tube
amplifers are technically inferior to transistor amplifers in all but very
rare instances. When they aren't inferior, they sound identical to
tranistor amplifers, that is they have so signnature sound of their own.
The article included a paragraph from a report on
a series of real placebo tests with the specific description of the
particular test subjects removed and substituted by a non-specific,
wordy description of the very large and varied generic class to which
they belong. Without the specific information on the particular test
subjects the article makes no sense, nor can it be criticised in
anything approaching a scientific or professional manner.
Nor was, other than to point out that musicans tend to suffer from hearing
loss.
The absence of the necessary information was intended to be obvious to
anyone qualified to discuss or conduct placebo tests.
More likely you did no such tests and just make this up as you go along.
Its obviousness
was tested: Twelve honours students were given this short article as
part of a coursework test and asked for a response within fifteen
minutes (just long enough to read it); all identified the anomaly and
asked for details of the test subject group.
The article was then provocatively (to Krueger) named "Why tubes are
the paradigm" and posted, when the opportunity arose, as an apparent
reply to pre-existing correspondence. The article and the resulting
thread is at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...aa51186ea4b171
RESULT OF THE INITIAL TEST
Subject Krueger responded immediately in an aggressively hostile
manner.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...f9e1eb9 48304
That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
Hardly hostile, a simple statement of fact.
He apparently did not notice, or if he noticed did not care, that the
test subjects were not specified. He did not ask for the test subjects
to be specified. Instead he stated that the tests could not be valid
because the generic group to which they belong, musical performers,
"are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds".
Please point out where in the post referenced by you where he said any such
thing.
Here is the rest of the post to help you.
37. Arny Krueger
Dec 9, 8:56 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
From: "Arny Krueger" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:56:19 -0500
Local: Fri, Dec 9 2005 8:56 am
Subject: Why tubes are the paradigm
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced
and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the
music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more
like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors
or
some self-mimicking biological growth.
That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers,
are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even
soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.
In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.
Probably due to a number of factors.
(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That
they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.
(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology.
(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who
must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.
(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often
very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion,
find a
trained technical listener.
This is in fact true of small minority of the universe from which the
actual test subjects were drawn but not of the particular test
subjects. He then proceeded to claim that other named subgroups from
the universe were also either hearing-impaired or capable of impairing
their hearing (singers).
He didn't claim it, he posted data as did others to confirm it.
He did not at this time or at any later point succeed in identifying
the test subjects.
Since he didn't know he posted info on a variety of musicans, at no time did
he say that they were in fact the people you claim to have studied.
Subject Krueger offered further unscientific, spurious or personally
insulting reasons for doubting the results:
"(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music.
That they would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense."
This is of course impossible in tests where the subjects cannot see the
machines under test.
"(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology."
A common smear tactic from subject Krueger's armory.
"(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that [are] endemic among
performers who must endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform."
Note "endemic" and "extraordinary SPLs" (sound pressure
levels), neither of which is justified by any evidence he proffered
either at this point or later.
These points were then argued with subject Krueger by team leader Jute
but Krueger snipped Jute's arguments and claimed:
" Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada)
critical points. Therefore they stand."
"snip empty rhetoric"
IOW, he told the truth and made you look foolish again.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/db0142000dfc0120?q=%22Jute+has+properly+addressed+ (none)+(zero)+(nada)+critical%22&rnum=3#db0142000d fc0120
CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST TEST
All three strands of the hypothesis were proved correct as stated
1. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
He did not ask for the specifics of the test subject.
2. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments.
3. Subject Krueger will not admit error.
Complete and utter bull**** from the mind of Andre Jute.
SECOND TEST
At this point it was decided to discover how far subject Krueger would
carry his denial of error. He was publicly bluntly confronted with
posing as an expert when he didn't know what the subject was.
Another lie, he simply posted reasons why any such test was likely to be
flawed.
A new
thread was started for this purpose in which proof was demanded of his
statements in relation to the test subjects, which were still not
identified him:
"Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9730fa608eb787
The result was a great deal more personal abuse directed at subject
Krueger's interlocutors. Having been advised that he had not been
informed of the specifics of the test group, he still did not request
information about the particular test group. Instead he went at random
through a wide variety of performers from the huge possible universe,
attempting to prove with data he found on Google that the outcome of
the tests described in the original article "Tubes are the
paradigm" could not be true. He continued to insist that he was the
ultimate expert on the subject. Here is his final admission, after more
than 200 messages in various threads, of his error, complete with
further personal abuse:
"The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. However,
Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
'...without knowing who they are or what they play or where.'
Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.
Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English
words or is he himself lying."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...53f45437 e3c5
Six hours after subject Krueger finally admitted "I spoke in
ignorance" he was once more in denial, telling one of his followers:
"It definitely separated the posers from the players," implying
that he won the argument. He furthermore deliberately restricted
dissemmination of his message admitting ignorance to only one of the
newsgroups in the debate; it was the only one of his messages he so
restricted.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND TEST
All the conclusions of the first test were confirmed:
You confirmed that you are not technically competent to conduct such tests
and that you don't understnd the meaing of the word lie.
4. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
Having been clearly and repeatedly told that he did know all the
necessary facts, he still did not ask for the specifics of the test
subjects, he still pontificated as if he were an authority, regardless
of the fact that he could not say an authority on what.
5. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments, and personal abuse to intimidate those who
defeat him in straight argument.
More of that famous Jute "projection," whereupon you ascribe your traints
to others.
6. Subject Krueger does not admit fallibility.
Sure he does but only when he's wrong.
When forced under severe
pressure to admit a gross error, he tries to limit dissemmination of
his admission, he tries to shift blame for it onto those who have
proved the error and within hours claims a victory, denying that he
committed the error.
Since no error was committed, no reason to claim that he made one. He was
not giving a specific reason why such a test as you claim to have conducted
was invalid, but why the general category of "musicians" was not a good one.
COMPLETE REPORT
The full analysis with tables containing message counts and time
intervals will be available at the end of February. The appendix of
psycho-textual analysis will be available in May.
E&OE
JT, MH, RN, JK, supervised by AJ
Thank you for that self serving heap of crapola where you show yourself once
again to be an unmitigated liar.