Signal wrote:
I have a dilemma with 'listener training'. As long term musicians
know, a well trodden path is hard to deviate from. You lose the
ability to listen holistically, and are more prone to reverting to
analytical listening patterns conducive to those musical activities.
You actually start to perceive sound and music in a different way than
"normal". I've known full time musicians who are unable to even listen
to music in a casual sense, anymore.

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly the point of
it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those "paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and holistically
again...

Arnie's screams of anguish at the HE2005 debate clearly signifies
agreement with this point![Listener training is..] "a two edged
sword", he says.

So, assuming the above is taken as read - the more important question
is... if you 'program' your brain in this fashion, could it be that it
has a detrimental and/or *subversive* effect on your overall listening
skills and/or patterns of listening behaviour?


Clearly, the OP is in dire need of this:

http://tinyurl.com/6k77g

To a cleaner environment! ;-)

In article ,
Signal wrote:

I have a dilemma with 'listener training'. As long term musicians
know, a well trodden path is hard to deviate from. You lose the
ability to listen holistically, and are more prone to reverting to
analytical listening patterns conducive to those musical activities.
You actually start to perceive sound and music in a different way than
"normal". I've known full time musicians who are unable to even listen
to music in a casual sense, anymore.

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly the point of
it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those "paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and holistically
again...

Arnie's screams of anguish at the HE2005 debate clearly signifies
agreement with this point![Listener training is..] "a two edged
sword", he says.

So, assuming the above is taken as read - the more important question
is... if you 'program' your brain in this fashion, could it be that it
has a detrimental and/or *subversive* effect on your overall listening
skills and/or patterns of listening behaviour?

On the classical recordings group there's a discussion of whether
listening while reading a score is different from 'just' listening. The
talk has degenerated to the point that the participants wonder if it's
really music if you don't follow along.

Stephen

Signal said:

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly the point of
it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those "paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and holistically
again...

Isn't that a problem for any kind of experienced listener? Haven't
most folks noticed how hard it is enjoying music on what you consider
an inferior system? Once you've heard something sound great, anything
less just doesn't seem to cut it.

Sure there is music that trancends the equipment it's played back on,
but in general after being exposed to good playback, it's more
difficult to not hear flaws.

In article ,
Signal wrote:

"MINe 109" emitted :

On the classical recordings group there's a discussion of whether
listening while reading a score is different from 'just' listening. The
talk has degenerated to the point that the participants wonder if it's
really music if you don't follow along.

Sounds most amusing.. ;-)

Which group is that?

rec.music.classical.recordings

The thread is "Listening with scores and libretti".

Stephen

wrote in message

http://tinyurl.com/6k77g


"At least" you could have provided one that you hadn't already used before.



----== 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 =----

Signal wrote:

I have a dilemma with 'listener training'.

Yeah Dormer, it might snap you out of your permanent
drug-induced haze.

As long term musicians
know, a well trodden path is hard to deviate from.

As they say, variety is the spice of life.

You lose the ability to listen holistically, and are more
prone to reverting to
analytical listening patterns conducive to those musical
activities.

Anybody who tries to figure out what you mean by "those
musical activities" (Hint, you never really defined them.)
will realize that you're talking in circles, Dormer.

You actually start to perceive sound and music in a
different way than
"normal".

Quick Dormer, what is *normal*?

I've known full time musicians who are unable to even
listen
to music in a casual sense, anymore.

All of them some of them or just a few of them? Is it
because they are musicians or is it because of some other
personality trait?

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps
instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness.

Or, it simply expands their awareness into paths they have
never trod on before.

What was I saying about variety?

That is exactly the point of it.

In your distorted view Dormer, that is.

Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the
particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those
"paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and
holistically
again...

So you assert, Dormer. But, who appointed you the guardian
of normalicy?

Arnie's screams of anguish at the HE2005 debate clearly
signifies
agreement with this point![Listener training is..] "a two
edged
sword", he says.

Right. If you raise peoples consciousness and tastes to
higher levels, they may become less pleased with that old
vin ordinaire that they've been figuratively swilling. If I
tell you that some MP3s have artifacts I've raised your
curiosity, but if I teach you how to hear those artifacts,
I've honed your senses.

So, assuming the above is taken as read

Given the source, now that would be a stupid thing to do.


the more important question
is... if you 'program' your brain in this fashion, could
it be that it
has a detrimental and/or *subversive* effect on your
overall listening
skills and/or patterns of listening behaviour?

So how you going to keep them down on the farm after they've
seen Gay Paree?

I've got an idea. Let's warn people away from listening to
the better-sounding audio gear because it may cause them to
become dissatisfied with listening to junk. That makes about
as much sense Dormer, as your warning them away from junk
listening tests.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Quick Dormer, what is *normal*?


It's a Kroolife!



----== 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 =----

Signal wrote



I have a dilemma with 'listener training'. As long term musicians
know, a well trodden path is hard to deviate from. You lose the
ability to listen holistically, and are more prone to reverting to
analytical listening patterns conducive to those musical activities.
You actually start to perceive sound and music in a different way than
"normal". I've known full time musicians who are unable to even listen
to music in a casual sense, anymore.

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly the point of
it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those "paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and holistically
again...

Arnie's screams of anguish at the HE2005 debate clearly signifies
agreement with this point![Listener training is..] "a two edged
sword", he says.

So, assuming the above is taken as read - the more important question
is... if you 'program' your brain in this fashion, could it be that it
has a detrimental and/or *subversive* effect on your overall listening
skills and/or patterns of listening behaviour?

It could never happen because it is the wrong conclusion. Arny is merely
taking advantage of his rather nebulous intellection of 'Listener Training.'

wrote
Signal said:


Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly the point of
it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking those "paths" it
becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally and holistically
again...

Isn't that a problem for any kind of experienced listener? Haven't
most folks noticed how hard it is enjoying music on what you consider
an inferior system? Once you've heard something sound great, anything
less just doesn't seem to cut it.

Sure there is music that trancends the equipment it's played back on,
but in general after being exposed to good playback, it's more
difficult to not hear flaws.


This is rather evasive of you.

Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It
helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly
the point
of it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the
particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking
those "paths"
it becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally
and
holistically again...

Isn't that a problem for any kind of experienced
listener? Haven't
most folks noticed how hard it is enjoying music on what
you consider
an inferior system? Once you've heard something sound
great,
anything less just doesn't seem to cut it.

Sure there is music that trancends the equipment it's
played back on,
but in general after being exposed to good playback, it's
more
difficult to not hear flaws.

No.

Apparently in Dormer's world, listening via better equipment
is never more revealing.

Makes you wonder how bad his stereo and/or his hearing
really is, doesn't it?

EddieM wrote:
wrote
Signal said:


Now consider Arnie's listener training program. It
helps instil
"paths" in peoples conscious awareness. That is exactly
the point
of it. Whist this surely helps people to hone in on the
particular
differences he's highlighting, once you are walking
those "paths"
it becomes increasingly difficult to listen naturally
and
holistically again...

Isn't that a problem for any kind of experienced
listener?

I don't know about the *any*. How about *most* or *many* ;-)

Haven't
most folks noticed how hard it is enjoying music on what
you consider
an inferior system?

Yes, and I also find that it is also harder to enjoy music
that was recorded in an inferior way (e.g., vinyl) on a good
wide-range system.


Once you've heard something sound great,
anything less just doesn't seem to cut it.

Hence my lack of patience with SETs and vinyl.

Sure there is music that trancends the equipment it's
played back on,
but in general after being exposed to good playback, it's
more
difficult to not hear flaws.

I tend to categorize quality of music and quality of
reproduction separately. However, they can be hard to
separate.


This is rather evasive of you.

Evasive how?

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote:

snip



This is rather evasive of you.

Evasive how?


PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music when
listening between an inferior and grander system.

PD talked about the subversive effects of (your) listening
training programto the conscious awareness -- just as what
McKelvy demonstrate above. He [McKelvy] seems to think
that listening training program is necessary to help expose
flaws when listening between inferior and exceptional system.

Paul Dormer said:

No.

No what? Is it your claim that it is not more difficult to listen to
lesser equipment and not notice playback flaws? How can that be? How
can you not listen more critically after hearing superior reproduction?

So, assuming the above is taken as read - the more important question
is... if you 'program' your brain in this fashion, could it be that it
has a detrimental and/or *subversive* effect on your overall listening
skills and/or patterns of listening behaviour?

NO. It's no more subversive than any other form of training on how or
what to listen to for the purpose of evalution. If one is not supposed
to be able to evalute in a critical fashion, then what's an upgrade and
how would you know?

EddieM still doesn't get it:

PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music when
listening between an inferior and grander system.

Because, IMO when you listen to good equipment you have been trained on
what to listen for. You learn the differences between inferior and
superior playback. It's not much of step to listen to specific musical
passages or sounds in order to recognize what they should sound like.

PD talked about the subversive effects of (your) listening
training programto the conscious awareness -- just as what
McKelvy demonstrate above. He [McKelvy] seems to think
that listening training program is necessary to help expose
flaws when listening between inferior and exceptional system.

I don't know if it necessary, but it is something that happens when you
listen to more accurate playback. Every audio publication I've ever
seen provides lists of music types and artists that they feel will help
you better evaluate an audio system. In so doing, they are asking you
to train yourself on how and what to listen for. Are such lists
subversive? How is training detremental if it helps you better evalute
an audio system?

It's the act of listening to better systems that trains one in how to
listen. If you hear better playback, you hear things you never heard
from a lesser system.

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be detrimental.

The Bug Eater is frustrated. Katydids aren't in season yet and he's cleaned his
hovel of all the cockroaches and crickets.

No.

No what? Is it your claim that it is not more difficult to listen to
lesser equipment and not notice playback flaws? How can that be? How
can you not listen more critically after hearing superior reproduction?

I think he meant "No, you may not speak. You're too stupid to live. Shut up and
go pop some pills."

Does that help, Mickey? ;-)

EddieM wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote:

snip



This is rather evasive of you.

Evasive how?

PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening
training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning
particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin
about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music
when
listening between an inferior and grander system.

Don't you think that "particular differences among musical
sounds" and hearing differences between "an inferior and
grander system" that is reproducing music are at the very
least intersecting sets?

PD talked about the subversive effects of (your) listening
training programto the conscious awareness -- just as what
McKelvy demonstrate above. He [McKelvy] seems to think
that listening training program is necessary to help
expose
flaws when listening between inferior and exceptional
system.

There may be disagrement, but evasion?

wrote:

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.

George Middius wrote:

Katydids aren't in season yet and I need
clean my hovel of all the cockroaches and crickets.

Sounds very unappetizing George. Hope you can find a better
place to live.

Turd-on-a-Rope whined:

The sound of music is unappetizing LOt"S. I'd rather eat ****
and molest children.

Finally, some honesty from the Krooborg.

Have you figured out my ebay ID yet, Turdy?

wrote
EddieM still doesn't get it:




PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music when
listening between an inferior and grander system.

Because, IMO when you listen to good equipment you have been
trained on what to listen for. You learn the differences between
inferior and superior playback. [...]

You meanto say that the listening training program proposed by your
best friend, Arny, teaches you to learn the difference between inferior
against superior playback ? You need a training 'program' for that ?

[...] It's not much of step to listen to specific musical passages or
sounds in order to recognize what they should sound like.

And so you infer that the said training program won't be much of step
to listen to specific musical passages or sounds in order to recognize
as to what, say, violins should sound like. You need a training program
to teach you what a violins should sound like ?

Yes or No ?

How does the training program go about teaching you what a violin
should sound like ?



PD talked about the subversive effects of (your) listening
training programto the conscious awareness -- just as what
McKelvy demonstrate above. He [McKelvy] seems to think
that listening training program is necessary to help expose
flaws when listening between inferior and exceptional system.

I don't know if it necessary, but it is something that happens when you
listen to more accurate playback. Every audio publication I've ever
seen provides lists of music types and artists that they feel will help
you better evaluate an audio system. In so doing, they are asking you
to train yourself on how and what to listen for. Are such lists
subversive? How is training detremental if it helps you better evalute
an audio system?


They're are telling us to listen to well engineered musical recordings
of various types and artist. Now go on tell me what your sidekick,
Arny, wants me to do under his propose 'listener training program.'

Don't hold back, be as elaborate as you can.


It's the act of listening to better systems that trains one in how to
listen. If you hear better playback, you hear things you never heard
from a lesser system.

This is what High-End magazines such as TAS and SP, to
name just a few, seem to put accross. I'm glad you agree with them


It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be detrimental.


I don't know what you mean. I listen to better system as much as I can
with good recordings.

Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote
EddieM wrote:

snip



This is rather evasive of you.

Evasive how?

PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening
training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning
particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin
about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music
when
listening between an inferior and grander system.


[ You said that you're technical skills in Internet Technology
is above average. When are going to come around
learning to set the margin and line-length in your posting?]



Don't you think that "particular differences among musical
sounds" and hearing differences between "an inferior and
grander system" that is reproducing music are at the very
least intersecting sets?


What do you think? And make sure that if you decide to think,
remind yourself to avoid responding out of context when you
reply.


PD talked about the subversive effects of (your) listening
training program to the conscious awareness -- just as what
McKelvy demonstrate above. He [McKelvy] seems to think
that listening training program is necessary to help
expose
flaws when listening between inferior and exceptional
system.

There may be disagrement, but evasion?


Yes. Begin reading through his reply to my post in this thread
in the next round.

Arny Krueger wrote
wrote:



It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.





Although the above from both of you are commonly referred
to as mis-direction. I'd like to think that it also fall under the
Hive's great umbrella of evasiveness.

EddieM is still clueless:

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

Although the above from both of you are commonly referred
to as mis-direction. I'd like to think that it also fall under the
Hive's great umbrella of evasiveness.

What evasivness? PD asked a question about listener training being
detriental, if that's true of the kind of listener training AK
discusses, then it would have to be true of all listener training,
which would include any comparison of any audio systems. There is no
misdirection, you simply don't like the answer.

wrote
EddieM is still clueless:




It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

Although the above from both of you are commonly referred
to as mis-direction. I'd like to think that it also fall under the
Hive's great umbrella of evasiveness.

What evasivness? PD asked a question about listener training
being detrimental, if that's true of the kind of listener training AK
discusses, then it would have to be true of all listener training,
which would include any comparison of any audio systems.
There is no misdirection, you simply don't like the answer.


Listen, if your mentor is a nutball for the kind of audio training
nutjobs he provides, how could you be so sure that it would also
have to be true for all other types of listener training being nutty.


And why did you say that I consider education detrimental.

EddieM said:

Listen, if your mentor is a nutball for the kind of audio training
nutjobs he provides, how could you be so sure that it would also
have to be true for all other types of listener training being nutty.

First you would have to establish that he, rather than you is a
nutball.

I'm sure that listening to better sound vs. inferior sound is a form of
training because otherwise nobody would ever upgrade on the basis of
"better sound."

And why did you say that I consider education detrimental.

Because that's what you are saying, regarding listening.

wrote
EddieM said:


Listen, if your mentor is a nutball for the kind of audio training
nutjobs he provides, how could you be so sure that it would also
have to be true for all other types of listener training being nutty.

First you would have to establish that he, rather than you is a
nutball.


I've proven he's a nutball many times. How much more do you need?

And YOU, I've proven that you are also. Do you doubt this?

Ferstler is another nutball who runs away and don't answer.

The three of you are just among the few remaining notable nutballs.


I'm sure that listening to better sound vs. inferior sound is a form of
training because otherwise nobody would ever upgrade on the basis of
"better sound."


By better sound, you're referring to well engineered musical recordings
and better playback system -- yes. I'm glad that you're taking the advice
of TAS, SP....etc. to the heart. This should make you the lesser of two
nutballs above


And why did you say that I consider education detrimental.

Because that's what you are saying, regarding listening.


I realize you are still a nutball but where did I say that I consider
listening to be educationally detrimental ?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote:

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.


Congrats!
You finally cleaned up that nasty brown streak



----== 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
Arny Krueger wrote
wrote:




It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.


Congrats!
You finally cleaned up that nasty brown streak



Where are the major nutballs, whackjobs, and punching bags
gone? Have they assimilated new ones lately, who ?

Eddie's about blow his top again:

EddieM Jun 13, 3:18 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "EddieM" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:18:39 GMT
Local: Mon,Jun 13 2005 3:18 pm
Subject: Listener training...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



wrote
EddieM still doesn't get it:

PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music when
listening between an inferior and grander system.


Because, IMO when you listen to good equipment you have been
trained on what to listen for. You learn the differences between
inferior and superior playback. [...]



You mean to say that the listening training program proposed by your
best friend, Arny, teaches you to learn the difference between inferior
against superior playback ? You need a training 'program' for that ?

I"m saying it teaches you how to listen for differences, better than
you would be able to without the training.

I don't know if it necessary, but it is something that happens when you
listen to more accurate playback. Every audio publication I've ever
seen provides lists of music types and artists that they feel will help
you better evaluate an audio system. In so doing, they are asking you
to train yourself on how and what to listen for. Are such lists
subversive? How is training detremental if it helps you better evalute
an audio system?



They're are telling us to listen to well engineered musical recordings
of various types and artist. Now go on tell me what your sidekick,
Arny, wants me to do under his propose 'listener training program.

Listen better.

It's the act of listening to better systems that trains one in how to
listen. If you hear better playback, you hear things you never heard
from a lesser system.


This is what High-End magazines such as TAS and SP, to
name just a few, seem to put accross. I'm glad you agree with them.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. To bad you're not a stopped
clock.

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be detrimental.


I don't know what you mean.

Finally something we can agree on.


I listen to better system as much as I can
with good recordings.

Why? Aren't you afraid you'll get trained on how to listen better by
being exposed to better playback?

Eddie just keeps chugging along the road to nowhe

First you would have to establish that he, rather than you is a
nutball.



I've proven he's a nutball many times. How much more do you need?

The only thing you've proven is that it requires someone to open up
your skull and spoon knowledge into your empty cranium, before you even
get a ****ing clue.

Your standard of proof is very low.


And YOU, I've proven that you are also. Do you doubt this?

That you're an idiot and a nutball? No, I don't doubt it.


I'm sure that listening to better sound vs. inferior sound is a form of
training because otherwise nobody would ever upgrade on the basis of
"better sound."


By better sound, you're referring to well engineered musical recordings
and better playback system -- yes.

Now we're getting somewhere, you're admitting you don't know what I'm
talking about. One more thing we can agree on.

I'm referring to good recordings played back on systems that are in
some way different from other systems that would be of different
fidelity. Some better some worse, that's how we learn that there are
differences. Learning how to better discern differencesd and what to
listen to and for are the essence of listener training.

I'm glad that you're taking the advice
of TAS, SP....etc. to the heart. This should make you the lesser of two
nutballs above.

See my earlier comments about stopped clocks.

Art Sackman said:

Congrats!
You finally cleaned up that nasty brown streak

He gave Eddie a shower?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Art Sackman said:

Congrats!
You finally cleaned up that nasty brown streak

He gave Eddie a shower?


Its part of Arny's training regimen.
Somewhere among the morass of wires and junked test
equipment, there is a shower stall.



----== 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 =----

wrote
Eddie's about blow his top again:

EddieM Jun 13, 3:18 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: "EddieM" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:18:39 GMT
Local: Mon,Jun 13 2005 3:18 pm
Subject: Listener training...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

wrote
EddieM still doesn't get it:




PD the OP comments regard the effect of listening training
program to the conscious awareness in discerning particular
differences among musical sounds. McKelvy is talkin about the
difficulty faced by experienced listener to enjoy music when
listening between an inferior and grander system.


Because, IMO when you listen to good equipment you have been
trained on what to listen for. You learn the differences between
inferior and superior playback. [...]


You mean to say that the listening training program proposed by your
best friend, Arny, teaches you to learn the difference between inferior
against superior playback ? You need a training 'program' for that ?

I"m saying it teaches you how to listen for differences, better than
you would be able to without the training.


Are you actually saying that Arny's training program, to which the OP
referred to, solely advocate that listener simply listen to superior
playback against inferior playback system and learn from there?


Anyway, could you please explain without sounding too evasive why you
added a buncha nonsensical, useless headers above yet, went on to hid
and deleted a rather short and simple question I had ask previously
which is:

Do you need a training program to teach you what violins should sound
like ?

How does the training program go about teaching you what a violin
should sounds like -- firsthand?


I don't know if it necessary, but it is something that happens when you
listen to more accurate playback. Every audio publication I've ever
seen provides lists of music types and artists that they feel will help
you better evaluate an audio system. In so doing, they are asking you
to train yourself on how and what to listen for. Are such lists
subversive? How is training detremental if it helps you better evalute
an audio system?


They're are telling us to listen to well engineered musical recordings
of various types and artist. Now go on tell me what your sidekick,
Arny, wants me to do under his propose 'listener training program.

Listen better.


So that's it ? Arny's 'listening training program' consist of asking me
to sit in front of an exceptional playback system along with well
engineered musical recordings ................ and listen better?

Either you and Arny are bull****ting each other or, you truly enjoy
licking your idol's butt to cover his ass.



It's the act of listening to better systems that trains one in how to
listen. If you hear better playback, you hear things you never heard
from a lesser system.


This is what High-End magazines such as TAS and SP, to
name just a few, seem to put accross. I'm glad you agree with them.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. To bad you're not a stopped
clock.


Isn't that what the HE mags been saying all along?


It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be detrimental.


I don't know what you mean.

Finally something we can agree on.

I listen to better system as much as I can
with good recordings.

Why? Aren't you afraid you'll get trained on how to listen better by
being exposed to better playback?

Your replies don't make sense.

wrote
Eddie just keeps chugging along the road to nowhe




First you would have to establish that he, rather than you is a
nutball.

I've proven he's a nutball many times. How much more do you need?

The only thing you've proven is that it requires someone to open up
your skull and spoon knowledge into your empty cranium, before you even
get a ****ing clue.

Your standard of proof is very low.


My standard of proof is very low? Ok, where is that whackjob hiding out
right now. Oh where is he?


And YOU, I've proven that you are also. Do you doubt this?

That you're an idiot and a nutball? No, I don't doubt it.


I'll remember what you said you POS.


I'm sure that listening to better sound vs. inferior sound is a form of
training because otherwise nobody would ever upgrade on the basis of
"better sound."


By better sound, you're referring to well engineered musical recordings
and better playback system -- yes.

Now we're getting somewhere, you're admitting you don't know what I'm
talking about. One more thing we can agree on.

I'm referring to good recordings played back on systems that are in
some way different from other systems that would be of different
fidelity. Some better some worse, that's how we learn that there are
differences. Learning how to better discern differencesd and what to
listen to and for are the essence of listener training.

Before you descend further into senselessness, I'm admitting
you don't know what you're babbling about with regards to the issue
raised by the OP.


I'm glad that you're taking the advice
of TAS, SP....etc. to the heart. This should make you the lesser of two
nutballs above.

See my earlier comments about stopped clocks.

See my earlier comment about you as a nutball.

Eddie continues to demonstrate how much he doesn't get it:

I've proven he's a nutball many times. How much more do you need?


The only thing you've proven is that it requires someone to open up
your skull and spoon knowledge into your empty cranium, before you even
get a ****ing clue.


Your standard of proof is very low.



My standard of proof is very low? Ok, where is that whackjob hiding
out
right now. Oh where is he?


And YOU, I've proven that you are also. Do you doubt this?

That you're an idiot and a nutball? No, I don't doubt it.



I'll remember what you said you POS.

I have a hard time believing you can remember where the bathroom is. I
have an even harder time giving a **** about your constant name
calling, followed by your pathetic indignation at being dished some
back at you.

Before you descend further into senselessness, I'm admitting
you don't know what you're babbling about with regards to the issue
raised by the OP.

That's not an admission. That's your worthless ****ing opinion.

See my earlier comment about you as a nutball.

Yet another worthless opinion, from someone who went through hundreds
(IIRC) of posts on the issue of level matching.

PD posted a question.
I responded to that question with a logical response on the issue of
listener training.
You then say I'm evasive?
Clearly, you have no idea what evasive means.
You don't seem to have a clear idea on the subject being discussed.
You seem to be participating in this thread for the sole purpose of
personal attacks.
If that's what you want, I'll engage you as long as I find it amusing.
If you wish to actually discuss the topic without the insults and
personal attacks, I'm fine with that as well.

You decide.

EddieM wrote:

Where are the major nutballs, whackjobs, and punching bags
gone?

Eddie, you Middius, Weil, ScottW, and Sackman are still
here.

Have they assimilated new ones lately, who ?

What alias did you used to post under? You sound a lot a
like a nutcase we used to have round here who posted as
"Phil".

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:06:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

wrote:

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.

As if, commas were an, indication of, "education".

dave weil said:

It would seem that you and PD consider education, to be
detrimental.

The great unwashed tend to think that way, it seems.

As if, commas were an, indication of, "education".

Arnii is still bemused by apostrophes.

Eddie continues to flail blindly:

Are you actually saying that Arny's training program, to which the OP
referred to, solely advocate that listener simply listen to superior
playback against inferior playback system and learn from there?

No, an only an idiot would think so. It purpose is to teach you how to
listen better.

Anyway, could you please explain without sounding too evasive why you
added a buncha nonsensical, useless headers

It was an accident, sorta like you probably were.

above yet, went on to hide
and deleted a rather short and simple question I had ask previously
which is:

Do you need a training program to teach you what violins should sound
like ?

The question is stupid and you knew it when you asked it.

So that's it ? Arny's 'listening training program' consist of asking me
to sit in front of an exceptional playback system along with well
engineered musical recordings ................ and listen better?

Another admission that you don't have a ****ing clue about what you're
even discussing.
Go to the web site and see for yourself what's going on and then you
won't embarass yourself with such nonsense. Or not.

Either you and Arny are bull****ting each other or, you truly enjoy
licking your idol's butt to cover his ass.

Or you're just a ****ing idiot who hasn't the faintest idea what
listener training is about. If you did you know what the reason for it
is, to help people make better judgements about what they hear as
opposed to what they think they hear when bias is not controlled.

Harman uses it, cel phone manufacturers, like Nokia use it, hearing aid
manufacturers use it, and they do it so they can make make better
products, more accurate products.

I know all this is contrary to your preconcieved notions that bias
controlled, level matched comparisons are not neccessary, but then you
are clearly out of the audio mainstream on that issue. Those who make
a living providing accurate audio reproduction, rely on those kind of
comparisons. They do it for one reason and one reason only, THEY WORK.

wrote
Eddie continues to demonstrate how much he doesn't get it:



snip the rest of McKelvy's wahhhhh



PD posted a question.

PD posted only one question. And that question was:


"... could it be that it[Listener Training] has a detrimental and/or
*subversive* effect on your overall listening skills and/or patterns
of listening behaviour?"



I responded to that question with a logical response on the issue of
listener training.


You lying pos. Your behavior and responses provided the proof to
prove the point on the question PD raise. Though I don't think that
the training will necessarily make it increasingly difficult to listen
naturally and holistically again to music, you and the other sublime
nutballs like Fertsler provide ample proof tha it can.


Your initial and subsequent responses concerns the difficulty faced
by experienced listener to enjoy music when listening to inferior
system who then, becomes a better listener after exposure to
exceptional system -- support the notion that most folks don't turn
into a punctiliously nitpicking nutball like yourself about proof and
the rigor involve in quantifying and isolating the amount of sonic
difference between audio component. That is indeed for subversive
Whackjobs to do.


You then say I'm evasive?

Do I have to point this out to you?

Clearly, you have no idea what evasive means.
You don't seem to have a clear idea on the subject being discussed.
You seem to be participating in this thread for the sole purpose of
personal attacks.
If that's what you want, I'll engage you as long as I find it amusing.
If you wish to actually discuss the topic without the insults and
personal attacks, I'm fine with that as well.

You decide.

Look, I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to find out for the month
of June which from the Hives is a leading contender for the all-important
Nutball of the Month award. Fair enough ?