I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

It really is creepy.
I have never heard of a person stalking someone in connection with a
scientific argument.
Perhaps we should be thankful that the subject is, on the list of human
concerns, rather far down.
If Mikey became obsessed with a social issue, such as abortion, he could be
dangerous to others.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it

It appears they used a form of DBT other than ABX in the paper I cited.
I'll have to look again for the other work that cites ABX.

Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him.

I thought you were referring to the .pdf files I sent you. If Sean Olive
sent you other stuff then I apologize for that mistake.

But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.

What are you talking about?

These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.

They were not fabrications.

They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.

You're right, you're creepy.

wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mikey, just stop it.
You're not doing ABX any good.
Noussaine, Krueger, et al. are good arguers for that pov.
Leave it to them.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:51:24 GMT, wrote:

It appears they used a form of DBT other than ABX in the paper I cited.
I'll have to look again for the other work that cites ABX.

Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him.

I thought you were referring to the .pdf files I sent you. If Sean Olive
sent you other stuff then I apologize for that mistake.

Thank you for that.
I accept your apology.
I think I really love you.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:51:24 GMT, wrote:

It appears they used a form of DBT other than ABX in the paper I cited.
I'll have to look again for the other work that cites ABX.

Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him.

I thought you were referring to the .pdf files I sent you. If Sean Olive
sent you other stuff then I apologize for that mistake.

Thank you for that.
I accept your apology.
I think I really love you.

Mikey, Bwian wants a date with you. Don't pass up his unique "piece of ass".

Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

















wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

wrote:
Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel

















wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel


Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.











wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he
looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

The Bug Eater dares to challenge reality.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.

http://tinyurl.com/9ocm2

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel


Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.

I promised myself to ignore your postings because there's neither
pleasure nor profit to be found there. But the flesh is weak..
I'll make you a deal: You write to S. Olive and apologise for sending
him a forged document and I'll read and comment on your site..
Ludovic Mirabel









wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he
looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S. Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

NYOB:
Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel


Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.

Okay: I'll play! Hmm. It's a reference in Doug Self's book and
website."Belcher intermodulation test"? A whole section of strawmen...

It didn't kill me, but it didn't do anything for me.

Stephen

"Signal" wrote in message
news
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

Could
it be that your argument is weaker than a **** bucket full of holes?

I'm not the one trying to refute that ABX is not a good way to test for
subtle differences.
I'm not the one who beleives that an ABX box masks differences.
I'm not the one who has no evidence whatsoever to prove that sighted
listening for subtle differences is as good or better than DBTs.

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel


Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.

I promised myself to ignore your postings because there's neither
pleasure nor profit to be found there. But the flesh is weak..
I'll make you a deal: You write to S. Olive and apologise for sending
him a forged document and I'll read and comment on your site..
Ludovic Mirabel

You want me to lie?

I forged nothing. I used a direct quote of one of your idiotic ramblings,
which Olive said was not true, in no uncertain terms. I also paraphrsed
something you have been saying, and I do not believe that I misrepresented
that in any way.



You keep claiming you want evidence about ABX. You claim it is no good for
audio comparisons.

Is there any evidence other than anecdote that confirms sighted listening is
reliable or even worthwhile for detecting subtle differences?

Of course the answer in no, otherwise somebody would have produced it by
now.

Ludovic, you can believe whatever you want, and obviously do, in spite of
the fact that ABX and ABC/HR are used routinely is audio testing, and plays
an important role in product development in more than one company and by
many different kinds of audio research.














wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
I suggest you contact Mikey privately.
None of us have to know it.
It is important for Mikey to receive some guidance from someone he
looks
up
to.

Arny, you are Mikey's father figure. Live up to that expectation.

I suggest that NYOB's postings suggest that not only he lost touch
with ordinary human decency but that he lost touch with reality-
whichever came first.
Examples: In Oct. he said that he had shown that BBC.used ABX. I
said
that he never did, that he could not because no such evidence exists
and challenged him to repost his reference. No answer.
He repeated this two days ago. Again when challenged :
BBC, B&O and Harman DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
DID NOT USE ABX
Disagree? Quote one excerpt from each to show that they did.
He answered:

"Already did that with the BBC you idiot."
Of course he did not because BBC never had used it
Example 2 He said that it was he not Sean Olive who sent me a
collection of Olive's papers. He never asked for my address, and I
never gave it to him. But I got a big envelope with a friendly note
from S. Olive in California about one month ago.
Example 3
He fabricated some moronic note from a "preson" mailed it to S.
Olive
for his criticism and then attached my name to it.
These fabrications are too clumsy for simple malice and dishonesty.
They are delusional.
Systematised paranoiacs can function fairly well in daily life but
hang
on to their delusional hang-ups about a particular situation or
person.
If you think it is creepy you're right.
Ludovic Mirabel.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all. Maybe even the article(s) that convinced you. You
say you are NOT reluctant to provide info? Maybe it's about time you
stopped running round in circles like a headless chicken / deranged
idiot and post something relevant.

PS We all know this is stupid farce, so cue the predictable excuses :

"Signal" wrote in message
...
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions.

And who exactly said that isn't possible? The most revealing way is
sometimes to use things other than music, yes pink noise and short segments
of music tracks. The validation is everywhere and almost everybody doing
any kind of audio research. Obviously the people doing the research have
validated ABX as useful as well as ABC/HR.

Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

See above.

Maybe even the article(s) that convinced you.

The forst article I ever read about ABX was in Electronics Now IIRC. It
detailed how 2 sets of tests were set up. One where there was extended
listening and no time lmit.

The second was typical quick switch.

One of the ways used to see if there was a higher senistivity for one method
over the other, was to inject THD in significant amounts into of the
signals. Oddly enough the long term listeners did very poorly at there
identifications. The quick switch people nailed it.

You
say you are NOT reluctant to provide info? Maybe it's about time you
stopped running round in circles like a headless chicken / deranged
idiot and post something relevant.

Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not always
the case.

"Signal" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" emitted :

Try looking for BBC engineering monograph no. 52

I have better things to do with my time than following your
delusions
once again just to hear another one of"Oops".
You found something - quote it here.
Ludovic Mirabel


Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

It won't kill you to just plug it into you search engine.

Okay: I'll play! Hmm. It's a reference in Doug Self's book and
website."Belcher intermodulation test"? A whole section of strawmen...

It didn't kill me, but it didn't do anything for me.

"BBC engineering monograph no. 52" is not available online. State
where readers of the newsgroup may obtain the paper to verify that it
involves ABX, or as you so clearly have a copy in your posession -
post a passage for our edification Mickey.

Try Freedom of information.

wrote in message
ink.net...



Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not always
the case.

Your paradigm is I HEARD WHAT I KNOW, which is not always the case.

Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not always
the case.

Your paradigm is I HEARD WHAT I KNOW, which is not always the case.

Actually the paradigm is let ears hear everything they can when they are
free of other distractions.

Either that or 20cents.

Sillybot preaches to a congregation consisting of himself. And duh-Mikey,
one supposes.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

Still waiting for a cogent explanation of what "science" has to do with
choosing recreational toys.

Any day now. Or any year.....

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself ,
seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO class..
I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime. It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments . If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " then you perform experiments to show that. Usually
amongst the true experimental scientists you're supposed to have a
representative sample of various kinds of listeners, representative
musical samples, rigid statistical criteria and so on. But no matter. I
don't want to see you taking refuge in quibbles about wording . Your
definition, your statistics are fine.

For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works.
You know that we've been that route just a few days ago (see your
November 19th posting in the "How to become life and soul...") thread.
You came up with a 30 years old link to a private website by Carlstrom
so laughable statistically and results- wise that it never made its way
past an editorial pencil Not even in a advertisers' rag. like the
defunct "Stereo Review". (see footnote)*
You never refuted my argument (I know I know: you "killfile"
,don't't you? Especially when you are short an answer)
Then, a few short days later you spray some eau-de-cologne to cover the
old smell and you bounce back as a spokesman for "science".
Helmholtz is turning over in his grave.
Ludovic Mirabel

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?
But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ? They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs. Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something? "

said:

* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?

I think the 'borgs worship exclusively at that altar because one of Their
commandments bades them to do so. If I remember correctly (and forgive me
for having jettisoned the nasty old copy of The Big Book of Borgma somebody
gave me because it stank of Kroofulness), it was commandment number 1, and
it went something like this:

"Youse shall have no other altars before, me when doing the 'debating
trade' in public against unbelievers. LOt"S!"


As everybody knows, the indefatigable Audio 'Borgs can get an extraordinary
amount of mileage (by Normal standards) out of a single phrase from their
holy fount of borgma. The 'borgs are nothing if not as persistent as the
nastiest dog poop you ever had to scrape off your shoe.

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


Sillybot preaches to a congregation consisting of himself. And duh-Mikey,
one supposes.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

Still waiting for a cogent explanation of what "science" has to do with
choosing recreational toys.

Any day now. Or any year.....

It has to do with what people claim to hear as different from components
that don't have any differences in sound quality. Science has provided a
way to determine if those differences actually exist, For those who want to
use it, it's there and it's useful.

For those who already understand how things are supposed to work, it's
probably not used much.

For those who don't care, they'll probably never use it.

I assume you would be in that last group. If so, you needn't let everybody
know every five minutes, we got it.

If you think you'll stop people from talking about it, you are deluded,
since at any given moment there are who knows how many people who are here
for the pupose of learning.

They have a right to know about how they can make better buying decisons if
they so desire. They like you can choose not to read it.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones
that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come
up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better
than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself ,
seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO class..

As a counter to you being the court jester.

I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime.

Oh good then you'll be gone while you study?

It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments .

Then you've decided to join the ranks of people realize that ABX is an
accepted and useful tool in determining if subtle differences actrually
exist?

If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " then you perform experiments to show that.

No one has proposed such a hypothesis. Strawman noted.



For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works.

For the nth time, find somebody doing audio research that doesn't use ABX or
some other form of DBT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?

Why don't you go to the sources, those companies that use ABX, since there
are so many of them and since there is also the AES papers, you could search
there as well.
Then you could shut up already and stop lying.

But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ?

Nope, it was expected.

They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs.

Again, verification that when differences exist, ABX reveals them.

Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something? "

Not at all, we know you how full of crap you are.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not
always the case.

Your paradigm is I HEARD WHAT I KNOW, which is not always the case.

Actually the paradigm is let ears hear everything they can when they are
free of other distractions.



yes, at home relaxing in the easy chair.

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


Sillybot preaches to a congregation consisting of himself. And duh-Mikey,
one supposes.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

Still waiting for a cogent explanation of what "science" has to do with
choosing recreational toys.


It an't rocket science, unless your recreational
toys are backyard rockets.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other side
often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW WHAT I
HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is not
always the case.

Your paradigm is I HEARD WHAT I KNOW, which is not always the case.

Actually the paradigm is let ears hear everything they can when they are
free of other distractions.



yes, at home relaxing in the easy chair.

Blind and level matched.

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ink.net...



Muich that is relevant has been posted by me and others, the other
side often times just rejects it out of ahnd with things like I KNOW
WHAT I HEARD. Even though there is ample data to demonstrate this is
not always the case.

Your paradigm is I HEARD WHAT I KNOW, which is not always the case.

Actually the paradigm is let ears hear everything they can when they are
free of other distractions.



yes, at home relaxing in the easy chair.

Blind and level matched.



No, listening to what I have at home, for pleasure, not even comparing.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones
that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll come
up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is better
than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself ,
seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO class..

As a counter to you being the court jester.

I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime.

Oh good then you'll be gone while you study?

It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments .

Then you've decided to join the ranks of people realize that ABX is an
accepted and useful tool in determining if subtle differences actrually
exist?

If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " then you perform experiments to show that.

No one has proposed such a hypothesis. Strawman noted.



For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works.

For the nth time, find somebody doing audio research that doesn't use ABX or
some other form of DBT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?

Why don't you go to the sources, those companies that use ABX, since there
are so many of them and since there is also the AES papers, you could search
there as well.
Then you could shut up already and stop lying.

But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ?

Nope, it was expected.

They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs.

Again, verification that when differences exist, ABX reveals them.

Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something? "

Not at all, we know you how full of crap you are.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.
Ludovic M.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Signal wrote:
" emitted :

Right whatever you do don't look at any evidence, especially ones
that
might
give positive results from an ABX comparison.

Following your own advice I see, what with eyes dangling limply
on
thine cheeks, tendrils flexing from thee sockets.

Why are you so reluctant to proffer the overwhelming "evidence"?

Reluctant????????????????
All you have to do is put ABX into your search engine and you'll
come
up
with hundred if not housands of articles explaining why DBT is
better
than
sighted listening.

We've heard 'explanations' from ABXism believers till the cows come
home. What is required is +ve results/validaton of ABX with music
and
components under sensible conditions. Just something that shows it
works, that's all.

The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself ,
seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan says:
The definition of 'works', among audiophiles such as yourself , seems
to be, 'validates what I believe to be true based on sighted
listening'.

That ain't how science works. Tough luck for you.


Sullivan is back again as a spokesman for "science" for the RAO class..

As a counter to you being the court jester.

I'll tell him how "science works"- anywhere, anytime.

Oh good then you'll be gone while you study?

It is very
simple. It works by validating its hypothesis in successful
experiments .

Then you've decided to join the ranks of people realize that ABX is an
accepted and useful tool in determining if subtle differences actrually
exist?

If the hypothesis is "There is no better way than ABX
to uncover subtle differences between audio components in their ability
to reproduce music " then you perform experiments to show that.

No one has proposed such a hypothesis. Strawman noted.



For the nth time: quote any published experimental work anywhere
showing that your ABX incantation works.

For the nth time, find somebody doing audio research that doesn't use ABX
or
some other form of DBT.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "Enough . - anything not to get "Carlstrom" hurled at me for
the fourteenth time by you and other members of your sect. .After 30
years this venerable private web site does deserve a rest. You must
have plenty of others. Why keep them a secret?

Why don't you go to the sources, those companies that use ABX, since
there
are so many of them and since there is also the AES papers, you could
search
there as well.
Then you could shut up already and stop lying.

But what the hell- I'll give you Carlstrom. In that site they showed
that even when ABXing they can still hear the difference between a 400
watt transistor Dynaco and 7 watt DIY tube Heathkit. What, not
impressed ?

Nope, it was expected.

They also heard the difference between another now defunct
amp and an ARC that they found out needed urgent repairs.

Again, verification that when differences exist, ABX reveals them.

Still not
impressed? This will clinch it; they heard the difference between the
very first 14-bit cdplayer ever made, a Philips 100, and 10 years
younger models. And that's about that.
Or am I concealing something? "

Not at all, we know you how full of crap you are.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion.
Ludovic M.

I always asume there might be new people reading this NG who don't already
know how looney you are about the subject of ABX.