[George M. Middius[_4_]]

OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the disgusting medicine
of consumer audio. Just as cancer drugs are tested on lab rats by medical
researchers, so are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be tested, and DUTs
are deliberately given very minor alterations so audio engineers can be
chase after auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all to
take it.

But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine? We don't
have any audio illnesses that need curing. Or at least not by Normal
standards. 'Borg standards are something else, though. For You folks, the
illness is our simple, unadulterated enjoyment of music. You want to
pollute our enjoyment with "test" rituals. That way, you hope, Normals
will turn into soulless, music-hating drones like you.

I advise you nimrods to hang it up and hustle off to the cemetary. Unless,
of course, you think you still have a chance of "saving" consumer audio.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message

On May 8, 12:56 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the
disgusting medicine of consumer audio. Just as cancer
drugs are tested on lab rats by medical researchers, so
are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be
tested, and DUTs are deliberately given very minor
alterations so audio engineers can be chase after
auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all
to take it.

But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty
medicine?

I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a
DBT with you as subject. You remain thoroughly and
hopelessly
confused.


We don't
have any audio illnesses that need curing.

No, but you've the severest case of Arnyitis ever
recorded.

Phildo and George over in AAPLS are giving the Middiot a run for his title
of "Gay guy on Usenet most obsessed with Arny".

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:


*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.


Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.
Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
WITH you as the subject are also worthless.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 3:01*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 8, 12:56*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine?

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject.

Apparently you also wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT
with you as subject.

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Mai, 19:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 8, 3:01*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 12:56*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine?

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject.

Apparently you also wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT
with you as subject.


The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers.
Scott is not a reviewer, nor is he corrupt. I am also pure of heart,
so I don't need to do any
DBT's, either.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

The purpose[sic] of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers.

At last -- the "problem" is identified.

Scott is not a reviewer, nor is he corrupt.

Remuneration isn't the only thing that corrupts. Ideology does it too. As
far as being carried in the womb of a hard-drinking chain smoker, the jury
is still out.

[BretLudwig]

The purpose of DBTs is to debunk expensive and looney ideas. It does this
rather well. What it does not do is really establish whether something is
any good, only that the listener can't consistently tell.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Mai, 08:02, "BretLudwig" wrote:
*The purpose of DBTs is to debunk expensive and looney ideas. It does this
rather well. What it does not do is really establish whether something is
any good, only that the listener can't consistently tell.


Thanks for admitting that the tests are biased.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:
On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
WITH you as the subject are also worthless.

Hey, you're the one who says Ringdacs are crap .


I never called it crap.
I prefer soemthing else.
And my bias was that it would be preferable.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Flea-brain yaps on.

You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

Not at all. If some BARK BARK BARK! biased reviewer YAP YAP YAPPITY YAP expects me to
believe his BS WOOFWOOFBARKBARK pontifications and pay GROWL! SNARL! scratch scratch scratch
him for it, he's gotta WALKIES! NOW! provide some YAP YAP!! piddling on carpet
AAAAH! whimper proof.

So much for Scottie's training.

Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
WITH you as the subject are also worthless.

Hey, crap .

Good doggie! Eat this treat.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Did I hit one of Scottie's multitude of raw nerves?

Remuneration isn't the only thing that corrupts. Ideology does it too. As
far as being carried in the womb of a hard-drinking chain smoker, the jury
is still out.

Clearly the deep seated resentment George has for his mother
has been transferred to all women.

Funny how you assumed I was referring to you. BTW, I don't really think
you're corrupt. More misguided, or perhaps retarded.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 4:45*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Did I hit one of Scottie's multitude of raw nerves?

Remuneration isn't the only thing that corrupts. Ideology does it too. As
far as being carried in the womb of a hard-drinking chain smoker, the jury
is still out.
Clearly the deep seated resentment George has for his mother
has been transferred to all women.

Funny how you assumed I was referring to you. BTW, I don't really think
you're corrupt. More misguided, or perhaps retarded.

This was just a vehicle for 2pid to vent more homophobic fears. Don't
take it personally.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:



*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.



No he does not.
He has to provide his opinion.
That you think his opinion is BS, that is your opinion.
And you don't have to prove that either.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 7:03*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:



*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.
He has to provide his opinion.
That you think his opinion is BS, that is your opinion.
And you don't have to prove that either.

I think this thought will be too deep for 2pid to comprehend.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.



the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw, There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 13:09, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 5:03*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.

*Try to read what I wrote.
*and if he wants me to pay him for it, he does.


Subscribe to an alternate magazine that does.
Oops! there aren't any.
Start your own, after all you just claimed there is a market of
hundreds of millions
of potential subscribers.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 12:05*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

Then your option is to not buy it.

Huffing and puffing about reviewers doing DBTs when you will not
perform one yourself is a bit silly, yes?

LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 10:32*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw,

*At least all housholds. *Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? * I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".



We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions



There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?

Is the market potental everyone who eats? Can marketing
overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
How about bugs as basic source of protein
like soy?

Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?

I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
ad rates.


There aren't enough bugeaters in America.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 14:06, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 10:35*am, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Mai, 13:09, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 5:03*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.

*Try to read what I wrote.
*and if he wants me to pay him for it, he does.

Subscribe to an alternate magazine that does.
Oops! there aren't any.
Start your own, after all you just claimed there is a market of
hundreds of millions
of potential subscribers.

*Strawmen.
Bottom line is Atkinson and S'phile have a niche
of gullible subscribers that advertisers will pay to
reach. *I don't have to like it and I think it's
generally bad for the hobby.


I think its good, even the ads have some information.
"At least" you know what's out there.
Use your own common sense when reading it, and you'll be ok.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 12:53*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 10:32*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw,

*At least all housholds. *Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? * I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".

No.

Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".

No.

There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?

Is the market potental everyone who eats?

No.

Can marketing
overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
How about bugs as basic source of protein
like soy?

Yap yap yap.

Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?

I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
ad rates.

That wasn't the question now, was it?

Yap yap yap.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 12:09*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 5:03*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.

*Try to read what I wrote.
*and if he wants me to pay him for it, he does.

Then buy "S'phile" amd force him to do DBTs. Otherwise, you aren't
paying him.

[GeoSynch]

"Clyde Slick" wrote:

There aren't enough bugeaters in America.

There's only one known 'round here - fancied himself a speaker builder.


GeoSynch

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:
Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.

Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay him for it,
he does.

Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise, you
aren't paying him.

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
as a general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
experience. Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
has taken part in?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

John Atkinson said:

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
as a general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
experience.

That just shows you're short on faith.

Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
has taken part in?

That's really unfair, you know. Scottie is hoping to reshape the consumer
audio industry from inside the "debating trade" dimension, where reality
is unwelcome.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 15:16, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 12:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW wrote:

On May 10, 10:32*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions...
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw,

*At least all housholds. *Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? * I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".

We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions

I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
unsubstantiated declaration.

It dosesn't require a definition.
It is what it is; it
isn't set in stoen.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions

I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
unsubstantiated declaration.

It dosesn't require a definition.
It is what it is; it
isn't set in stoen.

You're butting up against Scottie's total lack of self-awareness. Even a
nitwit like Yapper can see how idiotic his "discussion" of magazine
reviews is. It's obvious the poor thing is getting bent about something
unrelated, but his disabilities prevent him from connecting the source of
his annoyance to the complaints he spouts.

(If you didn't pick up on it, what's really bothering Dimbulb this week is
the prospect of growing old. Something happened recently that brought him
up short at the realization of impending mortality, but he hasn't dropped
any clues about that specific event. He did go on a projection rampage
recently that revealed how uncomfortable his advancing age makes him.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 11:19*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 2:22*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:





John Atkinson said:

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
as a *general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
experience.

That just shows you're short on faith.

Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
has taken part in?

That's really unfair, you know. Scottie is hoping to reshape the consumer
audio industry from inside the "debating trade" dimension, where reality
is unwelcome.

Not that is ironic. *George invoking reality.

Not (sic) 2pid's utter lack of self-awareness.

*LoL. (sic)

I agree.

Yap yap yap.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 00:16, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 4:09*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 10 Mai, 15:16, ScottW wrote:

On May 10, 12:06*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW wrote:

On May 10, 10:32*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:10*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:37*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 2:53*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW wrote:

*I don't. *I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. *You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.

*Not at all. *If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

*Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw,

*At least all housholds. *Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? * I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".

We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions

I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
unsubstantiated declaration.

It dosesn't require a definition.

How do you determine the market size for something
undefined?

It is what it is; it
isn't set in stoen.

*Could you be any more vague?




You need ti be able to see the forest from
the trees and can deal with generalities.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick
wrote:
On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW wrote:
Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to
believe his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

No he does not.

Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
him for it, he does.

Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
you aren't paying him.

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977.

Typically, there's always been some kind of shall I be gentle and say
"distraction" in SP's published BTs.

My rejection of them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
considerable experience.

I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal peer review.
There is this recurrent flaw - introduction of spurious elements that seem
to be designed to further the SP "Everthing sounds different" agenda.

Remind me again how many blind
tests ScottW has taken part in?

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW wrote:
Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
him for it, he does.

Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
you aren't paying him.

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977...My rejection of
them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
considerable experience.

I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal
peer review.

As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, this
statement is irrelevant in the contect of _my_ experience
of organizing and taking part in such tests, which is
considerable, with that of blind-test advocate ScottW,
which is zero.

But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lip****z has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

John Atkinson said:

But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lip****z has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.


chuckle

What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers. You say it's to bypass all
biases and isolate the sound of a system from all other factors. You're
both wrong, of course. If you want the truth, you have to get it from
Arnii Krooger, who got it from Nousiane. The purpose of blind tests is to
show that if you don't know what's playing, it all sounds the same. Did
the tests done at Stereophile reach this conclusion? No, they did not.
Therefore your tests are fatally flawed.

Science is like modeling clay. You have to know how to shape it.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW
wrote:
Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
him for it, he does.

Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
you aren't paying him.

The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977...My rejection
of them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
considerable experience.

I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
informal peer review.

As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
this statement is irrelevant in the contect of _my_
experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,

The fact that a publication is not formally peer-reviewed is not a blank
check for shoddy work. I'm under the impression that the SR and Audio
Magazine tests that David Clark helped organize would have passed peer
review.


But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lip****z has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.

I have no familiarity with that.

Speaker tests are irrelevant to tests on electronics and cables for the
reason that there is no controversy over the idea that most loudpeakers
sound signficantly different. So, mention of them can easily be dismissed on
the grounds that they are a red herring.

In the opinons of many myuself included, SP regularly prints lengthy
articles claiming audible differences among electronic components that in
fact would be indistinguishable in a test of just audible performance.

IOW, if you want to base your audio purchases on appearance and perceived
repuation but not sound quality, then SP is just the magazine for you.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal peer review.
There is this recurrent flaw - introduction of spurious elements that seem
to be designed to further the SP "Everthing sounds different" agenda.



So now, each DBT must pass official academic peer reveiw!

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 10:57, George M. Middius wrote:



What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.

Did you just have a senior moment???????

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.

Did you just have a senior moment???????

"The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."

Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
Mr. Alzheimer's.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 13:29, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.

Did you just have a senior moment???????

"The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."

Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
Mr. Alzheimer's.)

that statement of mine was summarizing Scott's views,
in part of a post where I was following his 'logic'
to its conclusion.
You took me completely out of context.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.

Did you just have a senior moment???????

"The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."

Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
Mr. Alzheimer's.)

that statement of mine was summarizing Scott's views,
in part of a post where I was following his 'logic'
to its conclusion.

Oh, I see.

You took me completely out of context.

Not so. You failed to explain that you were paraphrasing Pea-Brain,
instead leaving unsuspecting readers to assume that your words were your
own opinion. What do you drink in Romania, anyway?

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 14:39, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.

Did you just have a senior moment???????

"The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."

Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
Mr. Alzheimer's.)

that statement of mine was summarizing Scott's views,
in part of a post where I was following his 'logic'
to its conclusion.

Oh, I see.

You took me completely out of context.

Not so. You failed to explain that you were paraphrasing Pea-Brain,
instead leaving unsuspecting readers to assume that your words were your
own opinion. What do you drink in Romania, anyway?

Most everybody here is aware of my views on DBT's
I haven't chaged them