The fact is, I adopt a skeptical attitude whenever I look
at any issue. Anyone who doesn't in these days of so much
charlatanism and deception is a fool. But why should my
skeptical attitude ultimately prevent me from accepting
the truth or value of something? Unless one has turned it
into some kind of creed or religion that causes a skewed
vision of things, skepticism should merely be a defence
against gullibility and a spur to investigation. In other
words, I regard skepticism as a tool to get at the truth,
not a contradiction of it.

OK Paul, so your skepticism has this gigantic blind spot
when it comes to audio.

Not at all. I've posted here several times that I'm extremely
skeptical about many audio products. I think high priced interconnects

are bunk, basically. If they make a difference, they've never made a
difference in my system. I don't even believe in "high end". Though I
accept there are subtle differences, the law of diminishing returns is
much too savage; as with most products the best value lies in the
middle area, the "upper budget", if you like. As for the fringes, I
tried green pens once and could detect no difference except to my
fingers, which ended up with ugly green stains. In fact I've tried
most tweaks and got nothing out of them. I did find in turntable days
that the right mat could improve smoothness and depth--I definitely
heard that. And I found that damping the lid of a Sony CD player
improved the sound quite remarkably, though damping the lid of a NAD
player made no difference at all.

Do you see where I'm going here, Arnie? What I'm saying is that I take
things as I find them. Some tweaks may work. Some may only work with
certain products in certain circumstances. But there are no hard and
fast rules. Some high end stuff probably isn't as good as its budget
equivalent. Some is no doubt much better, but probably only good value
to the idle rich. The thing is, once you adopt a position like, "All
properly operating, like measuring amps will sound the same," you rule
out any possibility of discovering otherwise, or even listening for
it. Your view then becomes a creed to be defended rather than a voyage
of discovery. George is right with the "Borg" nomenclature in the
sense that Borgs have no independent thought; they merely propound and
defend the aims and tenets of the Hive, and try to make new Borgs. I
reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at home I've never
detected more than a subtle difference even between favourite
equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to listen to. So taking account
of the many mysteries of life with which I was already acquainted, I
made the not unreasonable assumption that another was at work here,
that some kind of psychological or auditory masking effect was taking
place which I would be wise to avoid in future. I thus recurred to
comparing equipment by simply playing a favourite piece at length, by
which method I was able to make sensible and lastingly satisfactory
choices. I accept that ABX has its uses in industry and commerce, but
it certainly does not determine which product one is wisest to spend
one's money on, and never will.

Here endeth the lesson. We will now sing Hymn 43.....

"paul packer" wrote in message
...

Do you see where I'm going here, Arnie? What I'm saying is that I take
things as I find them. Some tweaks may work. Some may only work with
certain products in certain circumstances.

I heard a 2' length of unshielded interconnect that made an incredible
difference in the sound versus ordinary coax. This actually works against my
bias that such things should not make a difference, yet it it me plain as
day. Why should I deny the reality of the experience. Why shoudn't this
instigate further investigation, rather than a repetition of the ABX litany?

But there are no hard and
fast rules. Some high end stuff probably isn't as good as its budget
equivalent. Some is no doubt much better, but probably only good value
to the idle rich. The thing is, once you adopt a position like, "All
properly operating, like measuring amps will sound the same," you rule
out any possibility of discovering otherwise, or even listening for
it. Your view then becomes a creed to be defended rather than a voyage
of discovery. George is right with the "Borg" nomenclature in the
sense that Borgs have no independent thought; they merely propound and
defend the aims and tenets of the Hive, and try to make new Borgs. I
reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at home I've never
detected more than a subtle difference even between favourite
equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to listen to.

Yes, it is very subtle. The calculus of musical enjoyment is still a
mystery. It isn't understood, even by those who use the magic box.
Actually, I'm all in favor of ABX testing, provided that what is wrong with
it is FIXED. Something is wrong, something is overlooked, in the way that it
is applied. That is why I suggested that perhaps the mind has trouble
integrating the differences perceived over multiple switches; perhaps the
mind needs more elaborate symbology for each piece, such as a Picasso nude,
a picture, a visible form, a paper symbol, something to make sure that the
mind is fully engaged in summing the experiences of the repeated tests.
And ABXers must not arbitrarily deny the experiences of others; they must
not automatically invalidate them. Einstein's theory of relativity has been
under test now for 100 years. All good theories are continually put to the
test; it is only the bad ones that fade from view. The contradictions
between widely held experience and the claims of the ABXers must be resolved
before it can be taken as useful for hifi testing.

So taking account
of the many mysteries of life with which I was already acquainted, I
made the not unreasonable assumption that another was at work here,
that some kind of psychological or auditory masking effect was taking
place which I would be wise to avoid in future. I thus recurred to
comparing equipment by simply playing a favourite piece at length, by
which method I was able to make sensible and lastingly satisfactory
choices. I accept that ABX has its uses in industry and commerce, but
it certainly does not determine which product one is wisest to spend
one's money on, and never will.

Never? Perhaps, if someone is interested, and throws enough money at it, ABX
will come to the point where it has an edge over whatever it is an
accomplished ear does to test a component. I give it that possibility. That
doesn't mean it has to be used. There will still be people with the ability
and desire to do it their own way. And when they speak here about what they
like, and what they don't like, we should listen with respectful interest,
even if we disagree with their conclusions.

Paul, I applaud the eloquence with which you have stated your argument. We
have to realize that ABX is what gets Arny's juices flowing. I suspect it is
a crutch he uses to deal with his own life, including the tragic, and I do
mean this sincerely, tragic loss of his son. If this had happened to me, it
might have caused an everlasting rage against the universe. All the same, I
say to Arny, you have the intelligence and talent to do better. Go back and
fix your theory. People will admire you for it. If you come back with
something that is consonant or at least tolerant of the heartfelt beliefs of
many audiophiles, you will find yourself basking in the glow of approbation,
which is a lot better than what you have now.

"paul packer" wrote in message


In fact I've tried most tweaks and got
nothing out of them. I did find in turntable days that
the right mat could improve smoothness and depth--I
definitely heard that. And I found that damping the lid
of a Sony CD player improved the sound quite remarkably,
though damping the lid of a NAD player made no difference
at all.

Do you see where I'm going here, Arnie?

Pual, you're going your own way, science be damned.

What I'm saying
is that I take things as I find them.

Yes Paul, you're a poster boy for naive perception.

Some tweaks may work.

1,000 monkeys typing for 1,000 years...

Some may only work with certain products in certain
circumstances. But there are no hard and fast rules.

Dooooh!

Some high end stuff probably isn't as good as its budget
equivalent. Some is no doubt much better, but probably
only good value to the idle rich. The thing is, once you
adopt a position like, "All properly operating, like
measuring amps will sound the same,"

And Paul, fools like you don't realize that this statement
is a truism, and get all bent out of shape.

you rule out any
possibility of discovering otherwise, or even listening
for it.

Arrogant twaddle. I've probably spent more time trying to
rationally discover otherwise than 99.99% of all
audiophiles.

Your view then becomes a creed to be defended
rather than a voyage of discovery.

More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

George is right with
the "Borg" nomenclature in the sense that Borgs have no
independent thought;

George hates truely independent thought - look at his posse.

they merely propound and defend the
aims and tenets of the Hive, and try to make new Borgs.

There you go Paul, you've adopted Goerge's
junior-high-school name-calling tactics for your own life's
work.

I reject ABX because whenever I've done A/B testing at
home
I've never detected more than a subtle difference even
between favourite equipment and stuff I couldn't stand to
listen to.

So Paul, based on your inability to do sensitive, reliable
listening tests, you blame the methodology not your
ego-centric implementation of it.

Alternatively Paul, you take a noisy, inherently
unreliable, and above all ego-centric standard, and use it
to judge the rest of the universe. This is a proven
methodology for making big mistakes like deciding that the
earth is flat.

So taking account of the many mysteries of
life with which I was already acquainted, I made the not
unreasonable assumption that another was at work here,
that some kind of psychological or auditory masking
effect was taking place which I would be wise to avoid in
future.

Lack of introspection and inability to take responsibility
for your own actions, noted.

I thus recurred to comparing equipment by simply
playing a favourite piece at length, by which method I
was able to make sensible and lastingly satisfactory
choices.

That would be: Sensible and lastingly satisfactory choices
based on highly questionable information gathering and
illogical decision-making.

I accept that ABX has its uses in industry and
commerce, but it certainly does not determine which
product one is wisest to spend one's money on, and never
will.

Inability to separate out the fact that sound quality is not
the only thing that ratioinal people base their choices on,
noted.

Here endeth the lesson. We will now sing Hymn 43.....

I feel like I just interviewed the Pope...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person" gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking
Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ
is not a really good indicator, but your inability to
see the more obvious subtlties of the situation point in
that direction.


I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit, but Paul is not the guy to do it
to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody else on
r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow.

Here's a concept for you Robert - a spade is a spade.

He has been a model of cordiality.

Other than his implicit insults to people's intelligence.

Except in very rare
circumstances, it is impossible to tell very much about a
person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The
Best and the Brightest", he chronicles how some of the
most talented and brilliant member of this country's
elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense
is not as strong as it should be.

I said what I said, Robert and I'm sticking to it.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard
science, but he may have sensibilities and abilities of
an artistic, verbal, and proportional nature of which you
are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we listen to and
care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our
argument at all.

That would make them a lot like me, because I don't care a
lot about the argument at hand, either.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your
antisocial tendencies.

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an
officer in all of the social organizations that I'm a member
of because I'm so antisocial.

While such a post might be excused
in the context of the gamesmanship that goes on with
other players here, it will not be understood in terms of
Paul's gentle challenge to you.

See "implicit insults to people's intelligence".

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of
your thesis that he's nuts. While whether he's insane is
up in the air, Arny has strong antisocial tendencies. He
doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest retaining
Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

Just goes to show that Morein can't distinguish between
sanity and boredom with his endless know-nothing posturing.

Robert Morein said:

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

To me it's not a thesis -- it's a fact. And you should know that I wasn't the
first to state the viewpoint that Krooger is kracked. The first RAOer to do so
was the illustrious Alan Derrida, the mere mention of whose name, you will note,
still causes the 'borgs to scream in horror.


..
..
..

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking
Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ
is not a really good indicator, but your inability to
see the more obvious subtlties of the situation point in
that direction.


I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit, but Paul is not the guy to do it
to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody else on
r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow.

Here's a concept for you Robert - a spade is a spade.

He has been a model of cordiality.

Other than his implicit insults to people's intelligence.

Please clarify, Arny. Did you challenge Paul's intelligence
a. because you feel he has challenged yours?
b. because you genuinely suspect Paul has low intelligence?

Except in very rare
circumstances, it is impossible to tell very much about a
person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The
Best and the Brightest", he chronicles how some of the
most talented and brilliant member of this country's
elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense
is not as strong as it should be.

I said what I said, Robert and I'm sticking to it.
But for what purpose? Is your purpose
a. Verbal aggression, which you justifiy because you feel you have been
victim of same?
b. "Outing" what you honestly feel is Paul's low IQ ?

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard
science, but he may have sensibilities and abilities of
an artistic, verbal, and proportional nature of which you
are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we listen to and
care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our
argument at all.

That would make them a lot like me, because I don't care a
lot about the argument at hand, either.

Then why do you respond so violently to challenges to your practice of ABX?

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your
antisocial tendencies.

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an
officer in all of the social organizations that I'm a member
of because I'm so antisocial.

Arny, I can't comment on what I don't see. If the rest of your life is more
balanced than what you exhibit here, that's a good thing. I can see where
organizations would give you a job, because they need workers, while
retaining doubts about you on a social level. Perhaps you think they like
you.

While such a post might be excused
in the context of the gamesmanship that goes on with
other players here, it will not be understood in terms of
Paul's gentle challenge to you.

See "implicit insults to people's intelligence".
I'll await further explication by you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of
your thesis that he's nuts. While whether he's insane is
up in the air, Arny has strong antisocial tendencies. He
doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest retaining
Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

Just goes to show that Morein can't distinguish between
sanity and boredom with his endless know-nothing posturing.

Obligatory arnyisms:
Thanks for admitting you're a nasty person.
Just goes to show Arny can't tell the difference between nasty and nice.
Arny, you need to buy a clue about cordiality.

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person" gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.
But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.


I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit, but Paul is not the guy to do it
to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody else on
r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow.

Here's a concept for you Robert - a spade is a spade.

He has been a model of cordiality.

Other than his implicit insults to people's intelligence.

Please clarify, Arny. Did you challenge Paul's
intelligence

a. because you feel he has challenged yours?
b. because you genuinely suspect Paul has low
intelligence?

c. none of the above.

Except in very rare
circumstances, it is impossible to tell very much about
a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The
Best and the Brightest", he chronicles how some of the
most talented and brilliant member of this country's
elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense
is not as strong as it should be.

I said what I said, Robert and I'm sticking to it.
But for what purpose?

Please see "a spade is a spade".

Is your purpose
a. Verbal aggression, which you justifiy because you feel
you have been victim of same?
b. "Outing" what you honestly feel is Paul's low IQ ?

c. none of the above

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard
science, but he may have sensibilities and abilities of
an artistic, verbal, and proportional nature of which
you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we listen to
and care so much about is mostly composed by non
scientists, created by people who mostly don't care
about our argument at all.

That would make them a lot like me, because I don't care
a lot about the argument at hand, either.

Then why do you respond so violently to challenges to
your practice of ABX?

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your
antisocial tendencies.

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an
officer in all of the social organizations that I'm a
member of because I'm so antisocial.

Arny, I can't comment on what I don't see. If the rest of
your life is more balanced than what you exhibit here,
that's a good thing. I can see where organizations would
give you a job, because they need workers, while
retaining doubts about you on a social level. Perhaps you
think they like you.

While such a post might be excused
in the context of the gamesmanship that goes on with
other players here, it will not be understood in terms
of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

See "implicit insults to people's intelligence".

I'll await further explication by you.

enjoy!

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of
your thesis that he's nuts. While whether he's insane is
up in the air, Arny has strong antisocial tendencies. He
doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest retaining
Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

Just goes to show that Morein can't distinguish between
sanity and boredom with his endless know-nothing
posturing.

Obligatory arnyisms:
Thanks for admitting you're a nasty person.

No, just bored with dumbness.

Just goes to show Arny can't tell the difference between
nasty and nice.

If you want nice Robert, be nice - for more than 10 seconds.

Arny, you need to buy a clue about cordiality.

I do cordiality well, even with people who are total
@$$holes. But enough is enough. Spades are still spades.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position. Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge to
the ABXers. An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly? I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis. I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.

"Robert Morein" said:

I heard a 2' length of unshielded interconnect that made an incredible
difference in the sound versus ordinary coax. This actually works against my
bias that such things should not make a difference, yet it it me plain as
day. Why should I deny the reality of the experience. Why shoudn't this
instigate further investigation, rather than a repetition of the ABX litany?


Well, I never thought I'd say this, but this seems an excellent
candidate for some kind of (double) blind testing.
If you're really keen on further investigation, that could be a start.

There is a possibility that a DBT (or even ABX) test of said cables
will yeild no positive results.
It then gets interesting, because what other factors are responsible
for you to hear a difference?

I followed the same approach in testing certain components for my
amplifiers, be it that they were single blind tests.

Remember, I'm a hobbyist, not a professional designer of amps (thank
God!).

BTW why *unshielded* interconnect cables? That seems silly to me.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position. Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge to
the ABXers. An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly? I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis. I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.
__________________________________________________ ______

Thank you in turn for a compliment. Flowers are always welcome
to a scribbler- never enough.
As to why ABX does not work in audio component comparisons? I
hate speculations. (Medicine had nothing but before it originated a
double blind evidence-based methodology)
But the lure is irresistible- so here goes.
If you look at the results of Sean Olive's double- blind
widely representative loudspeaker panel you see that majority performed
very badly when asked to differentiate between speakers. But the same
majority went unhesitatingly for the speakers with smoothest response.
Perhaps cerebral cortex performs badly when asked to
concentrate on differences between the complex musical signals
succeeding each other but has much less of a problem when asked simply
: which one do you like better?
This difficulty would be compounded with an ABX protocol in
place of simple DBT. There you have to memorise A, then B, and then
decide if X is more like A or B. It may work very well in audio
research on simple tasks (phase differences, codecs and such) but
complex musical signal may be beyond its scope.
That may have been at least part of the reason why sainted
Olive felt ABX was "unsuitable" for comparing differences between
speakers when reproducing music. Of course DBT is the only way to
decrease the sighted placebo response. But identifying DBT with DBT/ABX
in this context is completely unjustified.
I note that training improves the DBT performance. But not for
everyone. Some of his trained listeners remained hopeless and some were
better than the others. Just like in real life. And one more
speculation- perhaps training is about becoming proficient in using the
DBT methodology at least as much as about improved recognition of
differences.
Ludovic Mirabel
This copy will be mailed to Sean Olive with some hope that he will
allow the publication of his answer in this vipers' nest.

wrote in message
oups.com

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that Mirabel
is not very wise

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

I heard a 2' length of unshielded interconnect that made an incredible
difference in the sound versus ordinary coax. This actually works against
my
bias that such things should not make a difference, yet it it me plain as
day. Why should I deny the reality of the experience. Why shoudn't this
instigate further investigation, rather than a repetition of the ABX
litany?


Well, I never thought I'd say this, but this seems an excellent
candidate for some kind of (double) blind testing.
If you're really keen on further investigation, that could be a start.

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons, some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.

There is a possibility that a DBT (or even ABX) test of said cables
will yeild no positive results.

Perhaps. But I don't mean to imply anything remarkable about cables either.
It could be that the preamp had an unusually high output impedance. OTOH, it
could be that Macolm Hawksford is right after all. The distinguished cables
are an unshielded twisted pair. My point is, it is an observation of an
audiophile, that like so many others, is contradicted by the exponents of
ABX.

It then gets interesting, because what other factors are responsible
for you to hear a difference?

Preamp output impedance?
Alleged properties of cables that have not received general acceptance?

I followed the same approach in testing certain components for my
amplifiers, be it that they were single blind tests.

Remember, I'm a hobbyist, not a professional designer of amps (thank
God!).

BTW why *unshielded* interconnect cables? That seems silly to me.

Well, the cable "tweakos" and "freakos" would probably be attracted to the
visible innovation in construction, as opposed to what worthy things can be
done under a PVC jacket. The other argument would be, there's less
capacitance to drive without the braid. That is the closest I can come to
explaining the sound, which sounded markedly uptilted compared to the
conventional coax cables.

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
As to why ABX does not work in audio component comparisons? I
hate speculations. (Medicine had nothing but before it originated a
double blind evidence-based methodology)
But the lure is irresistible- so here goes.
If you look at the results of Sean Olive's double- blind
widely representative loudspeaker panel you see that majority performed
very badly when asked to differentiate between speakers. But the same
majority went unhesitatingly for the speakers with smoothest response.
Perhaps cerebral cortex performs badly when asked to
concentrate on differences between the complex musical signals
succeeding each other but has much less of a problem when asked simply
: which one do you like better?
This difficulty would be compounded with an ABX protocol in
place of simple DBT. There you have to memorise A, then B, and then
decide if X is more like A or B. It may work very well in audio
research on simple tasks (phase differences, codecs and such) but
complex musical signal may be beyond its scope.

This is very similar to my inclination. As pollsters know, how you ask the
question influences the answer that you get.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that Mirabel
is not very wise

Of course. Paul is not very smart, Ludovic is not very wise, but i, I, II,
III, ARNY KRUEGER, am BRILLIANT. If only the world would recognize it,
sigh.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that
Mirabel is not very wise


Of course.

So what?

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

As to why ABX does not work in audio component
comparisons? I hate speculations.

If Mirabel were a wise man, he would have stopped right
here.

snip lengthy essay whose very existence proves that
Mirabel is not very wise


Of course [Arny has deleted "Of course. Paul is not very smart, Ludovic
is not very wise, but i, I, II,
III, ARNY KRUEGER, am BRILLIANT. If only the world would recognize it,
sigh."]
So what?

The post you replied to contained (my authorship)
"Of course. Paul is not very smart, Ludovic is not very wise, but i, I, II,
III, ARNY KRUEGER, am BRILLIANT. If only the world would recognize it,
sigh."

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking
Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ
is not a really good indicator, but your inability to
see the more obvious subtlties of the situation point in
that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that your
complaints are completely hypocritical because you've been
doing the same thing to several people on this conference
for a long time and on many occasions.

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking
Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ
is not a really good indicator, but your inability to
see the more obvious subtlties of the situation point in
that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that your complaints are
completely hypocritical because you've been doing the same thing to
several people on this conference for a long time and on many occasions.
I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit. Hypocrisy is a form of denial.
Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your claw hammer. If you had
any sense, he is the kind of representative of the other side who you would
want to engage on a continuing basis.

And, sorry to say, Mikey is not a very intelligent person. Some may hold it
against me that I spotlight this, but hey, it's true.

As time goes on, I have come to realize how correct Middius is in his
assessment of you. You are a nut; not the kind of person who is diagnosed
with mental illness, but just a miserable sonofabitch. Perhaps, Arny, you
deserve better in life. Perhaps your considerable abilities should have
resulted in greater reward. Perhaps all your prodigy should have survived
you. But even high achievers have problems. Around middle age, they realize
that they are not going to get the Nobel; they are not going to make the
seminal discovery that starts a new field; they are not going to be
remembered. It happens to 99.999% of human beings. For most of them, the
consequences to their psyches is a little despair, and then occupation with
what they can do.

There is still an opportunity for you, Arny, to rescue yourself from the
social abyss you have fallen into. As I have remarked, there is a way for
you to become a champion of a renewed ABX, once it is discovered what is
wrong with it,and the necessary modifications of the technique accomplished.
But first, you must extirpate the negativity with which you approach the non
ABXers on this group. I know it gets your juices flowing; but at the end of
the day, it is an unhealthy way to live.

You must learn to celebrate the rising of the sun, not the sunset.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an officer in all of
the social organizations that I'm a member of because I'm so antisocial.


Being elevated in status by a congregation of religious nuts
and a group of audio borgs is not affirmation of positive
character and behavioral attributes.

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.


I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit, but Paul is not the guy to do it
to. Unlike you, me, or practically anybody else on
r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow.

Here's a concept for you Robert - a spade is a spade.

He has been a model of cordiality.

Other than his implicit insults to people's intelligence.

Please clarify, Arny. Did you challenge Paul's
intelligence

a. because you feel he has challenged yours?
b. because you genuinely suspect Paul has low
intelligence?

c. none of the above.

Except in very rare
circumstances, it is impossible to tell very much about
a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The
Best and the Brightest", he chronicles how some of the
most talented and brilliant member of this country's
elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense
is not as strong as it should be.

I said what I said, Robert and I'm sticking to it.
But for what purpose?

Please see "a spade is a spade".

Is your purpose
a. Verbal aggression, which you justifiy because you feel
you have been victim of same?
b. "Outing" what you honestly feel is Paul's low IQ ?

c. none of the above

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard
science, but he may have sensibilities and abilities of
an artistic, verbal, and proportional nature of which
you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music we listen to
and care so much about is mostly composed by non
scientists, created by people who mostly don't care
about our argument at all.

That would make them a lot like me, because I don't care
a lot about the argument at hand, either.

Then why do you respond so violently to challenges to
your practice of ABX?

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your
antisocial tendencies.

Yeah, like I'm such an antisoical dude, Robert. I'm an
officer in all of the social organizations that I'm a
member of because I'm so antisocial.

Arny, I can't comment on what I don't see. If the rest of
your life is more balanced than what you exhibit here,
that's a good thing. I can see where organizations would
give you a job, because they need workers, while
retaining doubts about you on a social level. Perhaps you
think they like you.

While such a post might be excused
in the context of the gamesmanship that goes on with
other players here, it will not be understood in terms
of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

See "implicit insults to people's intelligence".

I'll await further explication by you.

enjoy!

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of
your thesis that he's nuts. While whether he's insane is
up in the air, Arny has strong antisocial tendencies. He
doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest retaining
Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.

Just goes to show that Morein can't distinguish between
sanity and boredom with his endless know-nothing
posturing.

Obligatory arnyisms:
Thanks for admitting you're a nasty person.

No, just bored with dumbness.

Just goes to show Arny can't tell the difference between
nasty and nice.

If you want nice Robert, be nice - for more than 10 seconds.

Arny, you need to buy a clue about cordiality.

I do cordiality well, even with people who are total @$$holes. But enough
is enough. Spades are still spades.


Note: @rny'$ definition of an @$$hole i$ @nyone who might di$@gree with him.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
As to why ABX does not work in audio component comparisons? I
hate speculations. (Medicine had nothing but before it originated a
double blind evidence-based methodology)
But the lure is irresistible- so here goes.
If you look at the results of Sean Olive's double- blind
widely representative loudspeaker panel you see that majority performed
very badly when asked to differentiate between speakers. But the same
majority went unhesitatingly for the speakers with smoothest response.
Perhaps cerebral cortex performs badly when asked to
concentrate on differences between the complex musical signals
succeeding each other but has much less of a problem when asked simply
: which one do you like better?
This difficulty would be compounded with an ABX protocol in
place of simple DBT. There you have to memorise A, then B, and then
decide if X is more like A or B. It may work very well in audio
research on simple tasks (phase differences, codecs and such) but
complex musical signal may be beyond its scope.

This is very similar to my inclination. As pollsters know, how you ask
the
question influences the answer that you get.

YEP! Nor is there an option to respond that there is NO difference between A
or B.
That 'is' one of the possible outcomes.

Clyde Slick said:

Being elevated in status by a congregation of religious nuts
and a group of audio borgs is not affirmation of positive
character and behavioral attributes.

Let's here it four spelchekerz!

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:50:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Never? Perhaps, if someone is interested, and throws enough money at it, ABX
will come to the point where it has an edge over whatever it is an
accomplished ear does to test a component. I give it that possibility. That
doesn't mean it has to be used. There will still be people with the ability
and desire to do it their own way. And when they speak here about what they
like, and what they don't like, we should listen with respectful interest,
even if we disagree with their conclusions.

I think what bothers me about any form of A/B testing is that certain
aspects of audio evaluation are so subtle (yet real in the sense of
providing long term satisfaction) that they only become apparent after
weeks or even months; there's almost an element of osmosis at work.
I've had my current amp for months yet only now feel I'm getting a
handle on its sound---and yes, it does have a sound. Those who truly
listen to their equipment will know what I mean; the rest will
continue to be happy with their JVC integrated--and I don't mean that
sarcastically since a JVC integrated is all most people need and
anything more would be a waste of money. But those who truly listen
know the subtleties of sound, the particular sheen certain amps give
brass, accurately or not; the rosin on the bow example that you
yourself cited; the depth and air only the best equipment can recreate
but which is imperative to any kind letting go and sinking into the
music. As I say, Arny's invention is admirable and useful in many
circumstances, but not for the dedicated audiophile contemplating an
important purchase.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that your
complaints are completely hypocritical because you've
been doing the same thing to several people on this
conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your claw
hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120
range? IQ is not a really good indicator, but your
inability to see the more obvious subtlties of the
situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that your
complaints are completely hypocritical because you've
been doing the same thing to several people on this
conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your claw
hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

Arny, you've just received some advice intended to help you cure the hatred
in your heart. You don't realize it, but Satan has captured your soul. You
badly need someone to rescue you. Perhaps your pastor can help.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in
message

[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the
110-120 range? IQ is not a really good indicator,
but your inability to see the more obvious subtlties
of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that
your complaints are completely hypocritical because
you've been doing the same thing to several people on
this conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the
hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your
claw hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

Arny, you've just received some advice intended to help
you cure the hatred in your heart.

Well Robert, just because you can only call a spade a spade
because your heart is full of hatred, don't delude yourself
into thinking that everybody is just like you. It's been
obvious to me for some time, from your irrational ranting,
that far more emotion as opposed to logic rules your life.

"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons, some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

FWIW, I accept things like bias and state of mind when hearing
differences, but I don't discard them, or, even worse, try to take
them away during listening.
That's why I think DBTs (or ABX or whatever version) are of little use
to the consumer, he or she will always listen sighted, with all
possible biases in action.


Perhaps. But I don't mean to imply anything remarkable about cables either.
It could be that the preamp had an unusually high output impedance. OTOH, it
could be that Macolm Hawksford is right after all. The distinguished cables
are an unshielded twisted pair. My point is, it is an observation of an
audiophile, that like so many others, is contradicted by the exponents of
ABX.


Hawksford's views are underestimated, IMO.
He's ridiculed by the audio establishment for trying to think
differently.


Well, the cable "tweakos" and "freakos" would probably be attracted to the
visible innovation in construction, as opposed to what worthy things can be
done under a PVC jacket. The other argument would be, there's less
capacitance to drive without the braid. That is the closest I can come to
explaining the sound, which sounded markedly uptilted compared to the
conventional coax cables.


The cable capacity of my RG58U homebrew interconnects is 67 pF/meter.
Even a common cathode circuit with a ECC83/12AX7 and Ra=100kohm should
be able to drive that without problems.
That's about as bad as one can get concerning output impedance.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" said:

I mean it in a more general sense, that ABX itself is worthy of
investigation. Ludovic has compiled a substantial list of comparisons,
some
of which involve ancient, cheap, and lousy amplifiers against decent
ones;
ABX failed to allow the listeners to distinguish what should have been
easily distinguishable.


Recently, someone wrote (Paul Packer?) that he felt it was like some
kind of osmosis. Listening for a longer period of time revealed the
true character of an audio component.
I tend to agree with that view, while the EE in me says that it can't
work like that (on a technical level that is).

I don't think there is anything unscientific about the view that the brain
integrates impressions.

Take the human face, for example. Personally, if I see a person once, I do
not have the talent of picking the person out of a crowd or a lineup, unless
there is something really unusual about him. But as I see the person again
and again, at different angles and lighting conditions, my ability to
recognize the person increases enormously.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in
message ...
:
:
: Clyde Slick said:
:
: Being elevated in status by a congregation of religious nuts
: and a group of audio borgs is not affirmation of positive
: character and behavioral attributes.
:
: Let's here it four spelchekerz!

...see if you can find the transformation steps to create this:
"
Inside meeting and the composition audio borgs of the religion
nut by the group affirmation of affirmative character and conduct
attribute it does not increase in the nation."

(babelfish shows remarkable language resilience with "borg"

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

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in
message

[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the
110-120 range? IQ is not a really good indicator,
but your inability to see the more obvious subtlties
of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that
your complaints are completely hypocritical because
you've been doing the same thing to several people on
this conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the
hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your
claw hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

Arny, you've just received some advice intended to help
you cure the hatred in your heart.

Well Robert, just because you can only call a spade a spade
because your heart is full of hatred, don't delude yourself
into thinking that everybody is just like you. It's been
obvious to me for some time, from your irrational ranting,
that far more emotion as opposed to logic rules your life.

Then why do so many people hate you?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis
that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he
is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position.

The anti-ABX position is in direct contradiction to reality.

Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge
to
the ABXers.

No, it is a denial of reality.

An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly?

A false statement, it works ecactly as intended.

I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis.

Go ahead and write one and then get it critiqued by the real experts and
prepare for another ass whuppin'.

I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.

It is not flawed in any way that you have described. It does what it is
supposed to exactly as it is supposed to do it, that is whay it is
recognized as a valid test protocol.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in
message

[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the
110-120 range? IQ is not a really good indicator,
but your inability to see the more obvious subtlties
of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that
your complaints are completely hypocritical because
you've been doing the same thing to several people on
this conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the
hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your
claw hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

Arny, you've just received some advice intended to help
you cure the hatred in your heart.

Well Robert, just because you can only call a spade a spade
because your heart is full of hatred, don't delude yourself
into thinking that everybody is just like you. It's been
obvious to me for some time, from your irrational ranting,
that far more emotion as opposed to logic rules your life.

Then why do so many people hate you?

Perhaps because they lose so many arguements when they don;t know what they
are talking about and they get corrected. Everytime you've been shown to be
in error, you claim people are full of ****, as you did with Dick Pierce.

Lead by example.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis
that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I
suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he
is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position.

The anti-ABX position is in direct contradiction to reality.

Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge
to
the ABXers.

No, it is a denial of reality.

An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly?

A false statement, it works ecactly as intended.

I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis.

Go ahead and write one and then get it critiqued by the real experts and
prepare for another ass whuppin'.

I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.

It is not flawed in any way that you have described. It does what it is
supposed to exactly as it is supposed to do it, that is whay it is
recognized as a valid test protocol.
Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable, but Arny Krueger
bungled the engineering, and the experiment design. The only hifi companies
that use it are known for mass market sound equipment of dubioius quality.
We understand that you have impaired hearing, and impaired mental capacity.
You were a "special" child, and now you are a very "special" adult. Stick
with Fisher-Price.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...


It is not flawed in any way that you have described. It does what it is
supposed to exactly as it is supposed to do it, that is whay it is
recognized as a valid test protocol.

Mikey, it is terribly flawed. It may be salvageable, but Arny Krueger
bungled the engineering, and the experiment design. The only hifi
companies that use it are known for mass market sound equipment of
dubioius quality. We understand that you have impaired hearing, and
impaired mental capacity. You were a "special" child, and now you are a
very "special" adult. Stick with Fisher-Price.

Fisher-Price makes a mean toy wrecking ball!

Clyde Slick said:

You were a "special" child, and now you are a
very "special" adult. Stick with Fisher-Price.

Fisher-Price makes a mean toy wrecking ball!

Does RAO have an official aBxism Clown? If not, I nominate Mikey.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

You were a "special" child, and now you are a
very "special" adult. Stick with Fisher-Price.

Fisher-Price makes a mean toy wrecking ball!

Does RAO have an official aBxism Clown? If not, I nominate Mikey.

He is already official Village Idiot. Can we have ghost workers? Otherwise,
he is completely occupied.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in
message

[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has
highly limited reading and thinking skills. I'm
thinking Paul that maybe you have an IQ in the
110-120 range? IQ is not a really good indicator,
but your inability to see the more obvious subtlties
of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a
stupid person" gambit,

BTW Morien thanks for admitting right up front that
your complaints are completely hypocritical because
you've been doing the same thing to several people on
this conference for a long time and on many occasions.


I cannot be hypocritical with what I admit.

Sure you can. The admission can just compound the
hypcrisy.

Hypocrisy is a form of denial.

It's not just that.

Paul is the wrong person for you to attack with your
claw hammer.

That's an unfounded assertion you get to try to support,
Morein.

If you had any sense, he is
the kind of representative of the other side who you
would want to engage on a continuing basis.

Like you Morein, Paul is a crushingly stupid and boring
waste of time. My time, Mike's time, the time of anybody
with a life.

Arny, you've just received some advice intended to help
you cure the hatred in your heart.

Well Robert, just because you can only call a spade a spade
because your heart is full of hatred, don't delude yourself
into thinking that everybody is just like you. It's been
obvious to me for some time, from your irrational ranting,
that far more emotion as opposed to logic rules your life.

Then why do so many people hate you?

Perhaps because they lose so many arguements when they don;t know what
they
are talking about and they get corrected. Everytime you've been shown to
be
in error, you claim people are full of ****, as you did with Dick Pierce.

Lead by example.

Boy, Arny sure has you trained. I wish I had a dog like you.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...
be
in error, you claim people are full of ****, as you did with Dick Pierce.

Lead by example.

Boy, Arny sure has you trained. I wish I had a dog like you.



"At least" you wouldn't have to worry about cockroaches and crickets.