ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to
update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them liked
best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when deciding
his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of preferences
between the individuals in that *expert* group. The purchasing decisions
were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just as it would happen in
real life- only more so if one asks every Tom , Dick and Harry for their
opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of asking
if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it is
possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No other
walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing. His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness. So is his intolerance to accept that inherent ability. An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .

"JBorg" wrote in message
...
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to
update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's
work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them
liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when
deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of
preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The
purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes..
Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom
, Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of
asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that it
is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like not". No
other walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that
have no proof.

An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
repordcution more than I do.


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .




Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that
you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is
more in the realm of mysticism.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"JBorg" wrote in message
...
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to
update their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's
work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them
liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when
deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of
preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The
purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes..
Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every
Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of
asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that
it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like
not". No other walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.

An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
repordcution more than I do.


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .




Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that
you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is
more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof. Nor do we
believe
in mysticism. All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters.
It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we like.
This isn't science.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"JBorg" wrote in message
...
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what
one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's
extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because
they know DBT's work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them
liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when
deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of
preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The
purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes..
Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every
Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of
asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that
it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like
not". No other walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.

An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together
to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
repordcution more than I do.


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .




Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.

All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti Stones
or some other device for which there is no possibility of an effect, you
shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the absurdity of it.


It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we
like.
This isn't science.

Not the way some of the people here do it, that's for sure.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.


I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with Shakti
Stones.
I don't know whetner any particular people do hear differences with Shakti
Stones.
All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti Stones, and
if so,
are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them.
Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not
interested.
Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a difference. I
never
used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I might
possibly
find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I could
get better results for less money investing in better equipment. Question 3)
I probably
could afford them, but there are scads of other things
I would prefer to spend that money on.






All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti
Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an
effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the
absurdity of it.


That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs the
insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer audio
purchases.



It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we
like.
This isn't science.

Not the way some of the people here do it, that's for sure.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not
prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe
about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like
Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.


I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with
Shakti
Stones.

Yes you do, you just don't admit it. It's impossible.

All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti
Stones, and
if so,
are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them.

You're saying you don't care if it's possible for them to have an
effect.

Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not

interested.
Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a
difference. I
never
used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I
might
possibly
find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I
could
get better results for less money investing in better equipment.

Why would you be reluctant to know if it's possible for them to do what
they claim?
To me that's a more important question than being able to affor them.
I can afford a copper bracelet which is allegedly supposed to benefit
people with arthritis, but I won't buy one because I know they don't
have any effect.

Question 3)
I probably
could afford them, but there are scads of other things
I would prefer to spend that money on.


Save your money it is impossible for ehm to work as advertised.



All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant,
whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that
matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like
Shakti
Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an

effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on
the
absurdity of it.


That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs
the
insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer
audio
purchases.

But I don't insist on it and never have. I only suggest that people
claiming differences from things that aren'tlikely to have them or from
things like Shakti Stones, which do not have any effect, think about
finding out if there is a real effect or an imagined one. Perfectly
reasonable, in light of how many things have been shown to be snake
oil.

It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of
flavor we
like.
This isn't science.


There's no real science to listening, but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware
of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same
level of sound quality. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people
spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound
they are after, then can get it for less and buy better spakers or more
CD's.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the
exact same sound quality?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who
made the record wanted to be heard.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.

wrote in message
oups.com

There's no real science to listening,

....at least the way that Art (AKA Clyde Slick, Yustabe Slim, etc., etc.)
wants us all to listen.

but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

Here's a heads up - Art believes that green pen lines on the periphery of a
CD change how they sound.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music.

Really, neither do I. However, I have a problem with people who promote
ignornace as if it were special wisdom.


I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

Art has probably written something nice about clarifiers, but I don't feel
like trying to search them out using all of the aliases he's used through
the years.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

Agreed. I'll match your Crown and raise you two QSCs.

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be
aware of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve
the same level of sound quality.

Art is a vinyl-and-tubes maven. That means that his CD player has some
thermionic distortion enhancers tacked on near their output terminals.

That doesn't mean I have a problem
with people spending their money as they see fit, it just means that
if it's sound they are after, then can get it for less and buy better
speakers or more CD's.

If you spend less money than Art sees fit, no way can what you buy be good
enough. At least that's what he's told me. If you want to understand Art's
tastes better, remember that he's among the few who has posted his salary
here.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get
the exact same sound quality?

It makes them feel foolish?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It makes them feel foolish if they believe what you say?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for.

Two extremes of a continuum, to be sure.

I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers
who made the record wanted to be heard.

Another difference between Art and I is the fact that I mix for Sound
Reinforcment and do quite a bit of multitrack recording. Art has repeatedly
criticized me because I don't record the best musicans - mostly I work with
amateurs, even fairly rank amateurs. You see in Art's world its more
important to play a recording by a top artist than to play a recording where
you heard the corresponding live performance. Art says that he knows exactly
what a recording should sound like because he's heard similar groups play
someplace maybe.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.

I'm under the impression that Art was/is a government employee. If he earned
his money as some kind of a manager or analyst, then arguably the taxpayers
got robbed.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not
prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe
about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like
Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.


I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with
Shakti
Stones.

Yes you do, you just don't admit it. It's impossible.

All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti
Stones, and
if so,
are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them.

You're saying you don't care if it's possible for them to have an
effect.

Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not

interested.
Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a
difference. I
never
used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I
might
possibly
find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I
could
get better results for less money investing in better equipment.

Why would you be reluctant to know if it's possible for them to do what
they claim?
To me that's a more important question than being able to affor them.
I can afford a copper bracelet which is allegedly supposed to benefit
people with arthritis, but I won't buy one because I know they don't
have any effect.

Question 3)
I probably
could afford them, but there are scads of other things
I would prefer to spend that money on.


Save your money it is impossible for ehm to work as advertised.



All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant,
whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that
matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like
Shakti
Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an

effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on
the
absurdity of it.


That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs
the
insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer
audio
purchases.

But I don't insist on it and never have. I only suggest that people
claiming differences from things that aren'tlikely to have them or from
things like Shakti Stones, which do not have any effect, think about
finding out if there is a real effect or an imagined one. Perfectly
reasonable, in light of how many things have been shown to be snake
oil.

It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of
flavor we
like.
This isn't science.


There's no real science to listening, but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware
of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same
level of sound quality. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people
spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound
they are after, then can get it for less and buy better spakers or more
CD's.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the
exact same sound quality?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who
made the record wanted to be heard.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.


You're laboring under a false assumption.
Making these choices is not necessarily about spending more money.
Usuall, its about spending less money. My preferences and choices
have saved me lots and lots of momey. My most expensive component cost
$1,900. Every other audio purchase I made was under a grand.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

I have.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.


You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one has
yet to prove any sonic differences among them. Do you believe then that
additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be unnecessary ?


His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made that
have no proof.


Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but
feel it unneccessary to offer you proof?


An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together
to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.


I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
reproduction more than I do.


So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those
who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears.

Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other
audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of
various gears ?


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .


Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that
you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is
more in the realm of mysticism.


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive
differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

"JBorg" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

I have.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.


You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one
has
yet to prove any sonic differences among them.

Your paraphrasing is wrong. I and others have stated that gear that
performs within certain parameters of FR and distortion sounds alike.

Do you believe then that
additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be
unnecessary ?

Depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, it is easy enough to find
CD players, amps and preamps that sound alike. Ditto for wires. When it
comes to speakers, there are plenty of significant differences that make
experimentation worthwhile.


His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.


Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but
feel it unneccessary to offer you proof?

I'm not intolerant of them, I simply think they ought to try and be wiser in
their choices. Since it's about sound quality, one should simply
concentrate on what can or can not affect it. You are obviously free to
choose what you want for whatever reason you want. The fact still remains
that there are things that people that do not actually have any effect.
Since there are other people who lurk here without taking an active part in
these discussions, I think it's important that they be able to get straight
information. Those who argue so strenuously that XYZ product did so and so
to the sound of their system ought to be able to have the facts available to
them as well, even if they choose not to care. It seems pretty silly to be
offended by truth, especially since in the end, you don't have to act on it
if you choose.

An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us
together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and
that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.


I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
reproduction more than I do.


So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those
who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears.

I'm enchanted with good reproduction and I have always sought to optimize my
listen pleasure in any way possible. Key word possible.

Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other
audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of
various gears ?

Because many of the claims that are made about such sounds are known to be
impossible.

M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .


Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive
differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?
Um, they're called DBT's.

Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote





M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.


You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one has
yet to prove any sonic differences among them.

Your paraphrasing is wrong. I and others have stated that gear that
performs within certain parameters of FR and distortion sounds alike.


HE gears falling within certain parameters of FR and distortion will not tell
you what they will sound like. Our ability to hear and ability to discern
subtle
differences among gears is not dependent on our hearing's ability in
(accurately) distinguishing the FR responses and levels of distortion of audio
gears.

Put simply, your reasoning doesn't follow.


Do you believe then that
additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be unnecessary
?


Depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, it is easy enough to find
CD players, amps and preamps that sound alike. Ditto for wires. When it
comes to speakers, there are plenty of significant differences that make
experimentation worthwhile.


I'm not asking you whether it is easy to find CDs players, amps, or preamps
that sounded alike. I'm asking you if it is worthwhile for the industry to
pursue further sonic improvement on these components.


His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.


Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but
feel it unneccessary to offer you proof?


I'm not intolerant of them, I simply think they ought to try and be wiser in
their choices. Since it's about sound quality, one should simply
concentrate on what can or can not affect it. [...]


So if audiophiles don't offer you proof, you would only become tolerant of
them
as long as they try to be wise in their choices since it's about sound
quality?

What if you're deaf like Howard ferstler ? What type of sound quality should
be afforded to him ?


You are obviously free to choose what you want for whatever reason you want.
The fact still remains that there are things that people that do not
actually have any effect. Since there are other people who lurk here without
taking an active part in these discussions, I think it's important that they
be able to get straight information. Those who argue so strenuously that
XYZ product did so and so to the sound of their system ought to be able to
have the facts available to them as well, even if they choose not to care.
It seems pretty silly to be offended by truth, especially since in the end,
you don't have to act on it if you choose.

So it's important that those people who argue so strenuously that XYZ product
sound good to them, it should be important they get straight information and
hand the facts available to them. And that facts would be that if they could
not
provide you with proof why XYZ product sounded different, you will become
intolerant --- BUT they don't really have to act upon it.


It seems that the truth is whatever it is that you want them to do to satisfy
your ego.


An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together
to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us
closer even more.


I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
reproduction more than I do.


So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those
who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears.

I'm enchanted with good reproduction and I have always sought to optimize my
listening pleasure in any way possible. Key word possible.

Key Word: POSSIBLE

If it is not POSSIBLE for audiophiles to provide you with proof about
hearing sonic differences they'll never be enchanted with good audio
reproduction just like you do. Right?



Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other
audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of
various gears ?

Because many of the claims that are made about such sounds are known to be
impossible.


YOU SEE ? No matter what they do, it simply is not possible to you isn't it ?


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .


Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that
you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is
more in the realm of mysticism.


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive
differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

Um, they're called DBT's.

DBT again?

What source or type of media would you advice they use when making
the comparison?

"JBorg" wrote in message


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the Twilight
Zone

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the validity
of the results of DBTs.

Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?


(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the Twilight
Zone

In other words, you don't know.


(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the validity
of the results of DBTs.



I'm tired of discussing DBT's with you because in all cases you end up
always snipping what I say. You do this just before you run away completely
with your tail neatly folded and tuck between your legs. Remember ?

How ya doin with them Protocols ?

"JBorg" wrote in message
t
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the
Twilight Zone

In other words, you don't know.

In other words the answer is well known, but naive people are mislead to
believe otherwise.

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the
validity of the results of DBTs.

I'm tired of discussing DBT's with you because in all cases you end up
always snipping what I say.

That's because what you say Borglet, is so completely screwed up. It needs
all the correction it can get.

You do this just before you run away

No Borglet, I get tired of trying to talk sense to you because you are so
dense.

completely with your tail neatly folded and tuck between your legs.
Remember ?

Just more of your delusional bilge, Borglet.

How ya doin with them Protocols ?

Been there, done that. You rather vastly overstate your importance to
anybody but yourself, Borglet. If you want my attention, then pay attention
to what I say!

Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the
Twilight Zone

In other words, you don't know.

In other words the answer is well known, but naive people are mislead to
believe otherwise.

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the
validity of the results of DBTs.




I'm tired of discussing with you because your jar is empty.


Go away.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net

"JBorg" wrote in message
...

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio
industry is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be
particularly disturbing.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize
distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears
reflect his narrow- mindedness.

Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who pollutes
RAO with his crudeness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims
made that have no proof.

Most of JBorg's lack any believable support.

An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us
together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and
that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the
technology that bring us closer even more.

JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and love
music.

I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality
audio reprodcution more than I do.

JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered viewpoint.

M. McKelvy is intolerant.

He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he reads
in Stereophile, and ragazines like it.

He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause,

Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using the
handle JBorg.

a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences.

The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic. Sagacity means
having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness and wisdom. This word
does describe people who are not sucked in by the many false claims of the
dark side of the high end audio establishment. It's doesn't fit a born
sucker like JBorg who has bit on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked
bait that has been held in front of him.

Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine,
these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further
technological advancement in the High-End industry.

The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the snake oil
claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly dealt with and done
away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others suggest, there would be an
explosion of further technological advancement in the High-End industry.
Somehow I don't think that JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning
of his words here.

A congregation
of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring
unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound.

Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of sound on
the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the latest in
snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying acoustics.

They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those
committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the
highest state in the art of musical reproduction .

Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific approach
to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh and ahhs over
high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA subwoofer. Who is the fool?

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.

Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm from a
volt, or a SPL from a IM.

Arny Krueger" wrote
Michael McKelvy" wrote
JBorg" wrote


M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio
industry is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be
particularly disturbing.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize
distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears
reflect his narrow- mindedness.

Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who pollutes
RAO with his crudeness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims
made that have no proof.

Most of JBorg's lack any believable support.

An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us
together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and
that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the
technology that bring us closer even more.

JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and love
music.

I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality
audio reprodcution more than I do.

JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered viewpoint.

M. McKelvy is intolerant.

He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he reads
in Stereophile, and ragazines like it.

He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause,

Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using the
handle JBorg.

That has been my on-line persona. Full-fledged, veteran Rao'ers are aware
of my off-line identity. In your case, you're too demented to need to know.

a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences.

The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic. Sagacity means
having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness and wisdom. This word
does describe people who are not sucked in by the many false claims of the
dark side of the high end audio establishment. It's doesn't fit a born
sucker like JBorg who has bit on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked
bait that has been held in front of him.

Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine,
these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further
technological advancement in the High-End industry.

The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the snake oil
claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly dealt with and done
away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others suggest, there would be an
explosion of further technological advancement in the High-End industry.
Somehow I don't think that JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning
of his words here.

A congregation
of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring
unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound.

Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of sound on
the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the latest in
snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying acoustics.

They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those
committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the
highest state in the art of musical reproduction .

Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific approach
to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh and ahhs over
high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA subwoofer. Who is the fool?

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.

Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm from a
volt, or a SPL from a IM.


You know I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read any of your reply above.

"JBorg" wrote in message

Arny Krueger" wrote
Michael McKelvy" wrote
JBorg" wrote


M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance
about the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio
industry is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

Agreed that JBorg finds factual posting about high end audio to be
particularly disturbing.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize
distinctive sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears
reflect his narrow- mindedness.

Actually, McKelvy is very refined in this regard. It is JBorg who
pollutes RAO with his crudeness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims
made that have no proof.

Most of JBorg's lack any believable support.

An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us
together to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music,
and that small opportunity to express our appreciation for the
technology that bring us closer even more.

JBorg seems to think that he has the exclusive right to enjoy and
love music.

I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality
audio reprodcution more than I do.

JBorg will never get that because of his narrow, self-centered
viewpoint.
M. McKelvy is intolerant.

He's just a sophisticated consumer who doesn't believe everything he
reads in Stereophile, and ragazines like it.

He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause,

Pretty good description of a troll who posts here anonymously using
the handle JBorg.

That has been my on-line persona. Full-fledged, veteran Rao'ers are
aware of my off-line identity. In your case, you're too demented to
need to know.
a crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring
forth destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to
personal preferences.

The inclusion of the wort sagaciously is particularly ironic.
Sagacity means having discernment, sound judgement, farsightedness
and wisdom. This word does describe people who are not sucked in by
the many false claims of the dark side of the high end audio
establishment. It's doesn't fit a born sucker like JBorg who has bit
on just about every piece of snake-oil soaked bait that has been
held in front of him.
Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine,
these are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further
technological advancement in the High-End industry.

The word fulminate relates to an explosion. It is true that if the
snake oil claims of the dark side of high end audio were properly
dealt with and done away with as Nousiane, Ferstler and others
suggest, there would be an explosion of further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. Somehow I don't think that
JBorg meant to say this, but that is the meaning of his words here.

A congregation
of hatred that assault those at the forefront laboring
unrelentlessly to advance our knowledge in the physics of sound.

Actually, I've seen no evidence of any knowlege of the physics of
sound on the part of JBorg. He's apparently too enthralled with the
latest in snake-oil power cords to spend much time studying
acoustics.
They are an assembly of polluted thoughts readily ravishing those
committed to fulfill our desire to experience in our home the
highest state in the art of musical reproduction .

Ignores the fact that many of us are using the rational scientific
approach to obtain higher states of musical reproduction. JBorg oooh
and ahhs over high end power cords, and Nousaine builds a SOTA
subwoofer. Who is the fool?
Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not
prove that you hear what you claim and that much of what you
believe about audio is more in the realm of mysticism.

Please remind me of any post that suggests that JBorg knows an ohm
from a volt, or a SPL from a IM.


You know I'm just going to pretend that I didn't read any of your
reply above.

Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are
speechless.

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are
speechless.

More posturing.

That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you
can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap
taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone
demeanor.

dave weil a écrit :
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:11:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Thanks Borglet for admitting that my comments hit you so hard that you are
speechless.


More posturing.

That debate is going to be a slam-dunk for Mr. Atkinson, unless you
can organize your thoughts better and keep from relying on the cheap
taunt. I don't see that as very likely, considering your telephone
demeanor.


*GAG ALERT !!!!!*

Dave and his pertinent, intelligent, arguments.... :-)

Here, he is comparing a prepared meeting with an importune,
impromptu phone call with a drunk interlocutor.

Considering the quality of your above argumentation Dave, I
think it's better that you let Arnold Krueger debate alone.

At his place, I wouldn't be a cent on you.