| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51
wrote in message oups.com... ScottW wrote: "Fella" wrote in message .. . wrote: But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and death matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars". Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar, not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record. Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for my classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat himself. ScottW Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life to live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone. Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever, clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they were victories. So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by accusing me of "hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting one of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".- This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review" writers' invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were negative ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between *quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy" It also became quite obvious that he was not familiar with the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume, names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited one. And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate about subjects he simply does not understand. His next effort culminated in calling me a liar over Olive's article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose to quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading the original he wanted me to post it to him. Basing himself on that one sentence this illiterate buffoon had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that Olive's panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?" So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly as much as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9, Sept.2003, pps. 806-825) " "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all categories of listeners...." FURTHER: He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator." In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just requote this text. Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again. Ludovic Mirabel. To which I will reply: Olive said, "In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" " Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same thickness as 16 gauge. You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum? ScottW |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Just for Ludovic | Audio Opinions | |||
| STEREO: Scam of the Century? | Tech | |||
| Stereo: Scam of the Century? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Bose 901 Review | General | |||
Threaded Mode