"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic.

If I'm so ineffective Morein, why are you working to hard to trash
me?

In case you didn't notice Morein, I didn't come crying on your
shoulder about why nobody here likes me. All of your verbal
diarrhea on this topic is completely gratuitous on your part.

And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds, and I'm sure they have developed ABX
methodologies superior to yours.

This statement shows how stoopid you are Morein. If it's a better
methodology than ABX, then it's not ABX. Only technical illiterates
talk like ABX is the only DBT methodology. Yes, there are other DBT
methodologies and just to really rock your cradle, I advocate and
promote them. The leading alternative to ABX is ABC/hr and in
contrast to Morein's ignorant posturing, I clearly promote the use
of ABC/hr on the www.pcabx.com home page.

They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have
at least 10 Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

You're rather obviously missed any number of relevant points,
Morein. What's pathetic is that in more than 5 years since you last
argued DBT methodologies with me I've moved forward in a number of
highly meaningful ways, but you're still spinning your wheels.

Whether you do ABX correctly is doubtful,

There's a right way to make this claim Morein. Obviously figuring out how
to
do that is beyond your mental powers, so I'll clue you in. What you do is
study the published literature relating to the topic, and then compare
what
I've said here and on my www.pcabx.com web site to that literature, and
compare and contrast the two.

but I have never debated the
utility of this methodology. Sony, Harmon Kardon, and others
doubtless use it in the design process.

ABX and ABC/hr are both widely used. Morein, while you were futilely
trying
to sue your way into a PhD in court, we went through a little situation
called "watermarking". The preferred methodology for determining the
audibility of watermarking involved performing DBTs of either kind.
Interestingly enough, there were any number of reliable reports of
positive
outcomes for the audibility of watermarking which was initially presented
as
being inaudible.

What you don't seem to
understand is that the hobbyist without access to these resources
should, in his constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of
happiness, compare equipment in any way available to him, or in any
way that pleases him.

That's a choice that I surely can't take away from him. However in
accordance with my constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech, I
have
the right to comment on the effectiveness of such procedures as he chooses
to use, particularly when he reports what he does on a public forum such
as
Usenet.

Furthermore, the hobbyist is most pleased when
he is at liberty to have cordial communication with others who wish
to share their imprecise observations.

Again, that's a right I can't take away from anybody. If anybody feels
that
they don't want to read my opinions, they can simply ignore them. I can't
make people read what I write.

Unfortunately, Arny, you tend to interfere with these communications.

When a person offers their opinions up for comment on a public forum, it
is
possible that they may see some comments that they don't like. As always,
they can exercise their free will and ignore them.

Your social style is akin to the bludgeon, the rack, and the
auto-da-fe.

That would be your paranoid perception of my comments, Morein. That you
find
what I write to be threatening and painful to you is due to your own lack
of
conviction about what you write. This is, by the way actually quite
healthy
and normal on your part Morein, because many of your ideas about audio are
so wrong that there is no rational reason for you to believe them.

You do not believe in live and let live.

Sure I do. I don't go uninvited to people's houses or places of business
and
interfere in any way. I only go where I am responding to a specific or
general invitation. Everybody who reads my Usenet posts has to take a
specific voluntary action to do so.

You will not suffer cordial communication to occur, unless it satisfies
your
stringent guidelines. In a manner similar to religious fanatics, you
will not "suffer a witch to live."

This is of course just your paranoia speaking, Morein. I'm not omniscient
nor am I omnipresent. There are dozens if not 100's or 1,000's of places I
don't go, where I don't lurk, and where I don't post.

It is a shame that you do not realize the context sensitivity of human
discourse. The strength of the proof is only in proportion to the
strength of the claim. A person who says "this amplifier sounded
better to me than that amplifier", and who communicates this belief
to another person, should not be subject to your censure.

If people post their opinions on public forums with the intent that others
comment, what is wrong if someone actually comments?

You have two problems, Arny. One is that your science is as leaky as a
colander.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

The second is that you don't understand that music, and the
reproduction of, is for fun.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

It is a diversion. No purpose for it has
ever been divined. "Fun" has no objective measurement. No performance
metric can be applied to "fun."

Obviously Morein, you've confused listening to music with studying the
technology that is often used to reproduce it. Both are wonderful
activities, but they can be and often are almost perfectly irrelevant. One
case where they are irrelevant would be the act of listening to music at a
live performance. Perhaps you never see music performed live. I attend and
participate in live performances of music at least once a week. I am very
familiar with listening to music in a context where audio reproduction is
irrelevant.

If it had happened that you had applied your talents, which are not
inconsiderable, to quantifying the performance of cardiac
defibrillators, or water purifiers, or washers, or driers, your
methodologies would at least be in sync with the pertinent questions.

The things I've learned about collecting reliable evidence are relevant to
my business, and my business benefits from the skills I've learned while
studying the reproduction of music.

But for some strange reason, you chose music.

I love listening to music, and I do so whenever I reasonably can do so.

You are the wrong man for the subject.

I'm so effective at what I do Morein that I've always seriously threatened
your closely-held but largely bogus theories about audio.

If all you've done is to "seriously threaten" my beliefs, that's a rather
small achievement.
The mere annhialation of Bob Morein's beliefs would hardly cause a ripple.

The google record
shows that you found my ideas about listening tests threatening 5 years
ago,
and your actions today show that you find my ideas about listening tests
personally threatening to you today. I think you really ought to lighten
up,
Morein. Audio is just a hobby for you, after all. Why all this public
wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Quoting from my post, earlier in the thread,
"I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob Neidorff's
good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility, including my own,
toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints."

It's not the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST*** that has resulted in
your condemnation on this group.
Rather it is your ***HOSTILITY*** and ***BAD MANNERS****.

For some reason, Arny, you have gone over to the Dark Side.