[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by
Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
its credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to
submit to the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind
testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
standards.

NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
self..

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.


These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Who determine these ?




.... off to work, be back for more later.



snip...snip..snip..

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
. net...

Arny Krueger wrote:

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.

Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 13:02, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

. net...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

Plan C: anybody from Grosse Pointe Woods with a big anus.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:




Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.

Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.


I don't think so but there you go again with your delusive appeals.
A very strightforward question and the first thing you do is appease
your senility behind your ferocious superego in the name of science.

Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,
frequency response for a given audio component. They don't decide
whether that criteria had been met. They would be hapless to do so
on their own.




Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.


That appear to be so from those that promote objective audio testing.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:




Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance
measures to objective standards is to take ego out of it.

Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

I don't think so but there you go again with your delusive appeals.

Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've seen them
at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked with them.


frequency response for a given audio component.

Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric equalizers
built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency response of the
component so that system response at a variety of locations in the sound
field is optomized in accordance with their objective standard for frequency
response.


They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.

They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.

[Clyde Slick]

On 25 Oct, 05:26, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



Wrong Borglet,

thank you Grand Master Borg.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:





Wrong Borglet,

thank you



The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
using their ears alone. May I have your point ?








Grand Master Borg.

[Lionel]

JBorg, Jr. a écrit :
Clyde Slick wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:





Wrong Borglet,
thank you



The point I'm trying to make is to verify who is deciding
which will sound good and which will not. What I gather
so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
using their ears alone. May I have your point ?

Yes you can. :-)

No matter that we are objectivists or subjectivists, all the "anxiety",
doubt and agitation around the quality of the restitution of the musical
message degrade dramatically our ability to receive optimally the
musical message.

This is the entropic nature of the pleasure : search and observation
tends to make it impossible to locate.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
t...



What I gather
so far is that Arny and his friends seems to have no idea
whatsoever what comprise excellent frequency response
using their ears alone.

Borglet, your mind is gathering wool, not reliable knowledge.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote


snip...............


Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of their
life's avocation.


I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
have studied acoustics .

Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
with them.
frequency response for a given audio component.

Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
response of the component so that system response at a variety of
locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
objective standard for frequency response.


If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?



They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.


They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.



1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
hear things differently.

2.) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:


Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
response of the component so that system response at a variety of
locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
objective standard for frequency response.


If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?



They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.


They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.



1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
hear things differently.

2.) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?



Score !


Full point x3.

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote


snip...............


Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of
their life's avocation.

I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
have studied acoustics .

What about psychoacoustics?

Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
with them, adjusting and evaluating the frequency response for a given
audio component.

Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
response of the component so that system response at a variety of
locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
objective standard for frequency response.


If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?

Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble audio
systems, and play them in specific rooms.

They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.


They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.

obviously over the borglet's head, since he has no response


1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
hear things differently.

A blind alley.

(2) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?

How kind of you borglet to make up a pack of lies and then tell me its what
I believe!

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote


snip...............


Borglet, you're delusional if you think there aren't engineers and
scientists who have studied acoustics and psychoacoustics as part of
their life's avocation.

I didn't claimed that there aren't Engineers and scientists who
have studied acoustics .

What about psychoacoustics?


I am 100% confident that there are Engineers and scientists who
have studied psychoacoustic also.


Scientist and engineers does not decide nor determine whether
something has met the objective standard for, as an example,

Wrong Borglet, I know some of these people quite personally. I've
seen them at work, and on a few occasions, even personally worked
with them, adjusting and evaluating the frequency response for a
given audio component.

Many of the components they work with have dozens of parametric
equalizers built into them, so that they can adjust the frequency
response of the component so that system response at a variety of
locations in the sound field is optomized in accordance with their
objective standard for frequency response.


If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?

Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble audio
systems, and play them in specific rooms.


If the standards are not automatically met, why do Scientist and
engineers incorporate and use parametric EQ ?

Who decides and determine the standard of accuracy in the
case above ?




They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.

They would be hapless to do so on their own.

They don't have do it on their own, they do it as part of a team.

obviously over the borglet's head, since he has no response


Okey, they do it as part of the team.


Btw, their = plural possessive, they = plural nominative.



1.) The key to progress for me is to determine why audiophiles
hear things differently.

A blind alley.

Aren't there engineers and scientists who have studied psychoacoustic,
for example?




(2) The key to progress for you is to measure, ogle the scilloscopes
and concede to your testing devices to tell you what you should
hear. But we hear things differently. See that ?

How kind of you borglet to make up a pack of lies and then tell me
its what I believe!

The last sentence in #2 was misplaced, that's all.

(But we hear things differently.)

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote




If Scientist and engineers themselves decide and determine
certain standard is met for freq response, why do they have to
incorporate parametric EQ to the component ?

Because those standards are not automatically met when they assemble
audio systems, and play them in specific rooms.

They don't decide whether that criteria had been met.

They surely do.


Now you promise to stop this nonsense ?