wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"dizzy" wrote in message
wrote:
dizzy wrote:
wrote:
Secondly and more importantly if an audio consumer
tries to compensate for deficiences of records he
must end-up with an incredible mess.
Incorrect.
An invaluable contribution.
You are stupid.
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
==================================
Krueger reaches for his truly convincing and elegant
argument
My money is on equal parts of arrogant and senile.
Not senile enough to forget that every time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
and published in a professional journal, you develop
instant amnesia and quit the topic
Boredom puts me to sleep.
============================
Argument so far. Krueger about me:" My money is on
equal parts of arrogant and senile."
I answered: Not senile enough to forget that every
time you're asked
for a refernce to your experiments with ABX, accepted
and published in a professional journal, you develop
instant amnesia and quit the topic
His replica: " Boredom puts me to sleep.". Period.
Boredom is mutual but
it is audio website news that after all these years even
the inventor is bored with the topic of ABX as a tool for
comparing audio components.
Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are totally unfair. You
want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of peer-reviewed paper,
completely ignoring the fact that no other kind of listening evaluation
methodology has similar certification.
Let's put the shoe on the other foot Mirabel - some years ago you suggested
a subjective testing methodology in Audio Amateur. Where is the
correspoinding peer-reviewed paper *certifying* your methodology? Hint:
there is none.
In fact it has been certifed by peer-reviewed papers that there are severe
and critical problems with sighted evaluations. So why aren't you making a
big point of that?
Can we expect to see those your dentiments added tp the
PCABX web site?
I guarantee you that dentiments will never be posted at
www.pcabx.com.
However, if you are interested in my thoughts in the matter of subjective
testing, check
www.pcabx.com for the "10 Requiments" sidebar.
Can we also expect that you and your chapel members such
as Sullivan et al. will never again bother people to
prove their preferences by an "objective", "bias free",
(and other such clever-clever cryptonyms) "test"?
As soon as you can show us a peer-reviewed paper supporting the subjective
testing methodology you published in Audio Amateur.