| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Another lie exposed
Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks?
The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for loudspeaker tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate audible differences between A and B. The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained and untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests so long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments. My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own biased opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our research papers. We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example, I have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change at the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had different clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results. By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product is indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product?? Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
nyob123 wrote
Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for loudspeaker tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate audible differences between A and B. The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained and untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests so long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments. My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own biased opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our research papers. We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example, I have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change at the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had different clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results. By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product is indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product?? Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 I do not believe Mr. Olive had said the above. How can one be sure ? |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
|
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for loudspeaker tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate audible differences between A and B. The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained and untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests so long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments. My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own biased opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our research papers. We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example, I have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change at the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had different clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results. By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product is indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product?? Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 Dear Mr. Olive, Your remarks have been published with this heading: "Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks" "Ludovic" is yours truly Ludovic Mirabel I didn't use your name when I sent him the quote of what you said. I have been tempted to write to you before for your opinion on this old controversy but felt that you had better things to do than to be drawn into the parochial web forum disputes that must strike anyone looking from the outside as juvenile- to say the least.. IOW, My mind is made up I don't want to be confused with facts. I was very appreciative of your sending me your collected papers, unasked , with an undeserved compliment about my "scientific attitude". He didn't, I did. However these strange views were ascribed to me by NYOB : The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind . You will note that he does not quote. He fantasises about what "that person" is supposed to have "said" and "concluded" You think I misrepresented your ideas? I don't think so. . The view he puts in my mouth is such a distortion of what I did say about your pioneering paper on comparing loudspeakers that I feel not only my good name is at stake but also the debt of gratitude I owe you for this unique and excellent source. You may remember that I was the first to summarize it 2 years ago in the RAHE forum and sent you a copy of it about which I gather you had no complaints since you sent me your papers soon after. Probably went straight to the round file. I do not know if NYOB had your authorization to quote your opinion of what he put in my mouth.. If he did you are willy-nilly in the thick of it and I hope that you will not leave me to deal with it alone. This is one representative quote of what I really said (I referred to your work more than once): "A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will find the exact quote) And now Sean Olive did exactly that using DBT. Lo and behold- the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing difference but when not bothered with that knew what they liked.The chapel does not like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of the simple unsophisticated DBT. Go to it fellows- improve on poor, lost Sean Olive" You may remember that one year ago I emailed you asking for your comment about this divergence in your panel between the poor "performance" in differentiating loudspeakers while plumping unerringly for the better ones. Did I misunderstand your introductory summary where you say? " Significant differences in performance expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners..... Performance differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent...." On p. 808 you further define "performance*:"This metric accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings." I should say at this point that I am delighted to hear that you ask people for preference rather than for differentiating one speaker from another. That is the way I make my choices I will indulge in speculation (admittedly) that human grey matter copes more easily with "I like, I don't like" than with "This is different from the other" when coping with a complex musical signal. In my amateurish ignorance I may be completely wrong- if so I'll appreciate your straightening me out.. But the view propagated by ABXers on the internet is that you listen to A, then to B, then to X and then you're asked if X was more like A or B. To me it seems to be standing research on its head when it comes to comparing the musical performance of the audio components. If I understand you correctly this is your view as well. You did DBT but not ABX.. To demonstrate that I'm not ascribing views please look up the typical posting by A. Krueger in the "Life and soul at a party" thread in the rec.audio.opinion where NYOB put his "Guess what Sean Olive..." thread In conclusion I appreciate that DBT listening tests in your wonderful and expensive facility- completely out of the reach of an average audiophile- are invaluable. From that to recommending ABX testing for use by every Tom Dick and Harry is a vast gulf. I can't help but remind you boastfully that sight unseen, I identified from internal evidence in your paper the worst speaker you tested . All I did was to listen to it I apologise for wasting your time on this storm in a teacup but I feel I have no choice. Regards Ludovic Mirabel Mostly, you have no defense. |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
nyob123 wrote
Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for loudspeaker tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate audible differences between A and B. The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained and untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests so long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments. My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own biased opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our research papers. We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example, I have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change at the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had different clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results. By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product is indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product?? Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 One simple question and you're a NO-SHOW already. I said: " I do not believe Mr. Olive had said the above." Well, I'm not interested in your butt for now 'cause as you know, like your other friends such as Arny, you always like to ran away with your tail in-tuck. This is not an honorable thing to do. Rao deserves better. How can I take the word of someone who had proven himself with the disposition of running away with his tail-in-tuck ? So my question is, how can one be sure that Mr. Olive really wrote the above commentary. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
Eddie the idiot wrote:
So my question is, how can one be sure that Mr. Olive really wrote the above commentary. Dear stupid Twit: Send him and E-mail and ask him. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
NYOB123 wrote
Eddie wrote: So my question is, how can one be sure that Mr. Olive really wrote the above commentary. Dear stupid Twit: Send him and E-mail and ask him. YOU post the commentary which you allegedly claimed written by Mr. Olive. You said you know him well. You were lying weren't you ? |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for loudspeaker tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate audible differences between A and B. The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained and untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests so long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments. My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own biased opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our research papers. We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example, I have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change at the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had different clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results. By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product is indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product?? Cheers, Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd. Northridge, CA, 91329 Dear Mr. Olive, Your remarks have been published with this heading: "Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks" "Ludovic" is yours truly Ludovic Mirabel I have been tempted to write to you before for your opinion on this old controversy but felt that you had better things to do than to be drawn into the parochial web forum disputes that must strike anyone looking from the outside as juvenile- to say the least.. You mean you didn't want to embarressed for the idiotic lies you've been telling. However these strange views were ascribed to me by NYOB : The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind . You will note that he does not quote. He fantasises about what "that person" is supposed to have "said" and "concluded" It's what you've been saying for months. . The view he puts in my mouth is such a distortion of what I did say about your pioneering paper on comparing loudspeakers that I feel not only my good name is at stake but also the debt of gratitude I owe you for this unique and excellent source. You may remember that I was the first to summarize it 2 years ago in the RAHE forum and sent you a copy of it about which I gather you had no complaints since you sent me your papers soon after. To correct your erroneous interpretations no doubt. I do not know if NYOB had your authorization to quote your opinion of what he put in my mouth.. If he did you are willy-nilly in the thick of it and I hope that you will not leave me to deal with it alone. This is one representative quote of what I really said (I referred to your work more than once): "A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will find the exact quote) And now Sean Olive did exactly that using DBT. But not ABX. Lo and behold- the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing difference but when not bothered with that knew what they liked.The chapel does not like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of the simple unsophisticated DBT. Go to it fellows- improve on poor, lost Sean Olive" What the **** are you talking about? None of the pro ABX people has ever said that we thought there were any flaws in Sean Olive's work. or the way he did his research on loudspeakers. You're disembling again. You may remember that one year ago I emailed you asking for your comment about this divergence in your panel between the poor "performance" in differentiating loudspeakers while plumping unerringly for the better ones. Did I misunderstand your introductory summary where you say? " Significant differences in performance expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners..... Performance differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally consistent...." On p. 808 you further define "performance*:"This metric accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings." I should say at this point that I am delighted to hear that you ask people for preference rather than for differentiating one speaker from another. That is the way I make my choices I will indulge in speculation (admittedly) that human grey matter copes more easily with "I like, I don't like" than with "This is different from the other" when coping with a complex musical signal. In my amateurish ignorance I may be completely wrong- if so I'll appreciate your straightening me out.. But the view propagated by ABXers on the internet is that you listen to A, then to B, then to X and then you're asked if X was more like A or B. To me it seems to be standing research on its head when it comes to comparing the musical performance of the audio components. But not when it comes to speakers. Only when comparing for subtle differences as you've been told probably dozens of times. If I understand you correctly this is your view as well. You did DBT but not ABX.. Of course you understand it, I posted this view of his a few weeks ago. To demonstrate that I'm not ascribing views please look up the typical posting by A. Krueger in the "Life and soul at a party" thread in the rec.audio.opinion where NYOB put his "Guess what Sean Olive..." thread Again, when I asked him I did not use you r name, I simply extracted a quaote fo yours and said this is what someone said and let him respond. In conclusion I appreciate that DBT listening tests in your wonderful and expensive facility- completely out of the reach of an average audiophile- are invaluable. The facility may be but the methodology is not. From that to recommending ABX testing for use by every Tom Dick and Harry is a vast gulf. Which is why it is not the viewpoint held by anyone, you just made it up. That of course doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry who wishes to know about subtle differences can't use ABX or some other form of DBT. I can't help but remind you boastfully that sight unseen, I identified from internal evidence in your paper the worst speaker you tested . All I did was to listen to it I apologise for wasting your time on this storm in a teacup but I feel I have no choice. Regards Ludovic Mirabel When will you apologize for the lies and distortions you've told here? |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
Mickey McHurtMe asks, "Please, Ludo, may I have another?" When will you apologize for the lies and distortions you've told here? I agree with this sentiment. Ludo, please recant your earlier claim that Mickey is a fully functioning adult. TIA. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another lie exposed
wrote in message ink.net... : I posted this view of his a few weeks ago ,extracted a : quaote fo yours and said this is what someone said : I did not use you r name you didn't want to embarressed : When will you apologize for the distortions you've spelled ; out here? : : if typing errors killed :-): R. deceptive editin'..free of charge |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
wrote in message nk.net... Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message nk.net... Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG This time, for the first time, I have some objections to your views 1) H-K make junk. But they have also several prestigious brands of loudspeakers etc.-not necessarily my choice but certainly within high-end country 2) whatever the motivation: they spent money for a super "listening room" and they lured Floyd Toole and S. Olive away from Ottawa University as researchers- none more prestigious in the academic field. That "Mikey" tries to use S.Olive's good name as cover up for his fraudulent schemes does not change facts. Ludovic Mirabel Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
|
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... said: Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG This time, for the first time, I have some objections to your views 1) H-K make junk. But they have also several prestigious brands of loudspeakers etc.-not necessarily my choice but certainly within high-end country Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Harman own Madrigal? Their brands go far beyond loudspeakers. They do not. They do own REL, AKG, Mark Levinson, and Lexicon however. That "Mikey" tries to use S.Olive's good name as cover up for his fraudulent schemes does not change facts. The most salient fact being that duh-Mikey may be in greater need of corrective biofunctioning intervention than even Arnii Krooger. The most salient fact (no surprise yo missed it) is that Lude has been caught lying and Sean Olive has provided the proof. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
Another stupid, transparent lie from the Bug Eater. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Harman own Madrigal? Their brands go far beyond loudspeakers. They do not. They do own REL, AKG, Mark Levinson, and Lexicon however. Stupid Mikey, facts are for Normals. Harman bought Madrigal and dropped some of their lines, including the titular one. http://www.harman.com/about/index.jsp "Harman International is a company of listeners. With audio products that carry the Harman Kardon, JBL, Infinity, Revel, Audioaccess, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, Madrigal Imaging and Proceed names..." Now wipe your nose and go to bed without any crickets. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
wrote in message oups.com... Robert Morein wrote: wrote in message nk.net... Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks? The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like better?" rather than "Is A different from B". Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG This time, for the first time, I have some objections to your views 1) H-K make junk. But they have also several prestigious brands of loudspeakers etc.-not necessarily my choice but certainly within high-end country 2) whatever the motivation: they spent money for a super "listening room" and they lured Floyd Toole and S. Olive away from Ottawa University as researchers- none more prestigious in the academic field. That "Mikey" tries to use S.Olive's good name as cover up for his fraudulent schemes does not change facts. Ludovic Mirabel Ludovic Mirabel Ludovic, I didn't say that they exclusively make junk. The equipment sold under the Harmon name seems to be an attempt to capitalize on a name that like many, is etched in the public's consciousness. It seems that ABX is used to no good effect in the low end, except to squeeze another penny out of the production cost. As far as the high end is concerned, I would simply note that there is no evidence that the use of ABX has given them an edge over other high end manufacturers. Other high end companies do it their way, and come up with a spectrum of results in which Harmon's high end offerings can not be said to stand out in particular. There is a natural tendency for a large corporation to systematize human perception, via focus groups, blind tests of soft drinks, and so forth. Therefore, it is practically inevitable that HK would hire these guys away. And indeed, Canada sought to incubate technology for speaker design that would give a national advantage. I've had an opportunity to hear the result. A friend of mine has had a bevy of Canadian Paradigms in and out of his house in the past decade, all the result of the same national effort in which Toole and Olive have played such prominent roles. To my ears, these speakers have never excelled. They have extended frequency response, and good bass, but the illusion of reality is starkly lacking. The imaging is so-so; there is no depth; they sound as real as a cardboard cemetery. This is the legacy of the Canadian effort; equipment that can reliably be predicted to have all the power and persuasion of a B- student. What Sidney Harmon should have done, instead of hiring this academic brain trust, is hire speaker designers with a track record of making magic. I wonder if he ever considered making an offer to John Bau, designer of the Spicas, or to the kids who designed the original NEARs, rather than invest millions in anechoic chambers with funhouse rides for speakers. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
Robert the Moron Morein wrote:
Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG The junk is in your thinking and constant lies. Harman has many brands that it owns and produces as you can see if you visit their website: http://www.harman.com/brands/index.jsp |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
ABX=NFG
wrote in message ups.com... Robert the Moron Morein wrote: Mikey, Harmon makes junk. We know you love junk. ABX=NFG The junk is in your thinking and constant lies. Harman has many brands that it owns and produces as you can see if you visit their website: http://www.harman.com/brands/index.jsp ABX=NFG That's the only truth that matters. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Bret Ludwig exposed | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| vertigo online. EXPOSED AS SCAMMERS BY US OVER SIX MONTHS AGO! | Audio Opinions | |||
| "Fair and Balanced" Faux News exposed: | Audio Opinions | |||
| hearing loss info | Car Audio | |||
Hybrid Mode
