Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.

zwerl1 said:

Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Start he http://enjoythemusic.com/

But stay away from: http://www.pcab****.com/

George M. Middius wrote:

zwerl1 said:


Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.


Start he http://enjoythemusic.com/

But stay away from: http://www.pcab****.com/


Stay away from this NG as long as G. M. Middius gives you such free
advices. :O(

"zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part1/

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


zwerl1 said:

Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Start he http://enjoythemusic.com/

But stay away from: http://www.pcab****.com/


You have the link wrong.
It's http://www.pcabzero.com

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I know
nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part1/


Arny,
I amazed at the utter courtesy and open mindedness you demonstrated by
recommending this site, especially since Part 8, with great open mindedness,
includes viewpoints so different from your own.

I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob Neidorff's
good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility, including my own,
toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints.



15.1 Do speaker cables matter?
To avoid confusion and repetition, here is some terminology,
thanks to Steve Lampen of Belden Wire & Cable Co.

A wire is a single conductor made up of one or more conducting
elements, but all configured (as in a stranded design) to act
as a single conductor. Mostly, this is coated or covered by
plastic, rubber, enamel or similar insulators.

Groups of wires are called cables. So zip cord is a cable,
because it contains more than one insulated conducting
element. Coaxial cable is also cable.

Cables can introduce noise into the signal, act as a filter
(and thus change the frequency response of the system),
attenuate the signal (change the amplitude), and provide
nonlinearities from oxidized or otherwise poor connections.
Nonlinearities can distort the signal which add harmonics.
Nonlinearities can also rectify or demodulate higher frequency
signals into audible signals.

It is quite scientifically conceivable that some cables do
cause a difference in sound, because of the differences in DC
resistance, interconductor capacitance, and connector attachment
alone. The effects of exotic conductor weaving and materials
are not so well established. In general, these effects (once
we eliminate DC resistance), seem to be small. However, if your
system is at least fairly good, then some folks have observed
(although not in an experimental, double-blind sense)
significant differences in system performance with different
cables. The effects are said to be quite system specific; the
only real guideline is to try them and see which ones seem to
sound better in your system.

Roughly speaking, the price ranges for speaker cables is low
(under $1/ft), medium (under $6-8/ft), and high (up to $100/ft
and more). Try to arrange it so you can trial such cables; at
several hundred dollars per set, experiments can be expensive.

In any system or experiment, it is essential that the
differences between cables be separated from the
differences between connectors.

Robert Morein said:

But stay away from: http://www.pcab****.com/

You have the link wrong.
It's http://www.pcabzero.com

Thanks for the update.

What is the new name of Bwian's Web site?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob Neidorff's
good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility, including my own,
toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints.


As long as he wasn't hostile to subjectivist viewpoints.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

But stay away from: http://www.pcab****.com/

You have the link wrong.
It's http://www.pcabzero.com

Thanks for the update.

What is the new name of Bwian's Web site?


http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialect...studios.com%2F

Robert Morein said:

What is the new name of Bwian's Web site?

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialect...studios.com%2F

Not much of a punchline, Bobo.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

What is the new name of Bwian's Web site?


http://rinkworks.com/dialect/dialect...studios.com%2F

Not much of a punchline, Bobo.

You have to talk to The Big Cheese about that.

I'm not doing that sockpuppet. On the rare occasion that I use a sockpuppet,
I am deliberately very transparent.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I
know nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part1/


Arny,
I amazed at the utter courtesy and open mindedness you demonstrated by
recommending this site, especially since Part 8, with great open
mindedness, includes viewpoints so different from your own.

As will shortly evolve, the viewpoints in question are the same as my
viewpoints. What you meant to say Morein is that he presented viewpoints
that differ from your twisted and warped perceptions of my viewpoints.

I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob
Neidorff's good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility,
including my own, toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints.

Morien, you seem to have missed the fact that according to google estimates,
Neidorff made a grand total of 32 posts to RAO, and none since the last
quarter of 1996. Thus Neidorff has not been subjected a great deal of the
insanity and abuse that took place since then. More sepecifically, since
google searching shows that you didn't post here until well after he left,
he has not had to deal with your weirdness.

So right up front Morien, you're presenting speculation as fact, because
there is no evidence that can be used to determine how Neidorff would
respond to the current situation.


15.1 Do speaker cables matter?
To avoid confusion and repetition, here is some terminology,
thanks to Steve Lampen of Belden Wire & Cable Co.

A wire is a single conductor made up of one or more conducting
elements, but all configured (as in a stranded design) to act
as a single conductor. Mostly, this is coated or covered by
plastic, rubber, enamel or similar insulators.

Groups of wires are called cables. So zip cord is a cable,
because it contains more than one insulated conducting
element. Coaxial cable is also cable.

Cables can introduce noise into the signal, act as a filter
(and thus change the frequency response of the system),
attenuate the signal (change the amplitude), and provide
nonlinearities from oxidized or otherwise poor connections.
Nonlinearities can distort the signal which add harmonics.
Nonlinearities can also rectify or demodulate higher frequency
signals into audible signals.

It is quite scientifically conceivable that some cables do
cause a difference in sound, because of the differences in DC
resistance, interconductor capacitance, and connector attachment
alone. The effects of exotic conductor weaving and materials
are not so well established. In general, these effects (once
we eliminate DC resistance), seem to be small. However, if your
system is at least fairly good, then some folks have observed
(although not in an experimental, double-blind sense)
significant differences in system performance with different
cables. The effects are said to be quite system specific; the
only real guideline is to try them and see which ones seem to
sound better in your system.

Roughly speaking, the price ranges for speaker cables is low
(under $1/ft), medium (under $6-8/ft), and high (up to $100/ft
and more). Try to arrange it so you can trial such cables; at
several hundred dollars per set, experiments can be expensive.

In any system or experiment, it is essential that the
differences between cables be separated from the
differences between connectors.

So Mroein, exactly what do you find here that differs from my viewpoints
about cables? It all looks pretty much like a summary of my cable-related
posts to Usenet over the years.

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I
know nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part1/


Arny,
I amazed at the utter courtesy and open mindedness you demonstrated by
recommending this site, especially since Part 8, with great open
mindedness, includes viewpoints so different from your own.

As will shortly evolve, the viewpoints in question are the same as my
viewpoints. What you meant to say Morein is that he presented viewpoints
that differ from your twisted and warped perceptions of my viewpoints.

I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob
Neidorff's good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility,
including my own, toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints.

Morien, you seem to have missed the fact that according to google
estimates,
Neidorff made a grand total of 32 posts to RAO, and none since the last
quarter of 1996. Thus Neidorff has not been subjected a great deal of the
insanity and abuse that took place since then. More sepecifically, since
google searching shows that you didn't post here until well after he left,
he has not had to deal with your weirdness.

So right up front Morien, you're presenting speculation as fact, because
there is no evidence that can be used to determine how Neidorff would
respond to the current situation.

Arny,
Bob Neidorff and I have cordial relations, and I have, in fact,
contributed via correspondence to a modification in the statement of his
F.A.Q. about speaker placement. My question is not about Bob Neidorff. It is
about you. Mr. Neidorff maintains cordial relations with just about
everyone, and his F.A.Q. has had much more of an effect on persons entering
into this hobby than your espousals.

If your points of view and Mr. Neidorff's are actually coincident, or
nearly so, then the factor which distinguishes Mr. Neidorff from you is his
cordiality and inclusiveness. I have never known Mr. Neidorff to attack
anyone, or to interject into a thread in an antagonistic way. In fact, while
Mr. Neidorff promotes the advantages of blind and double blind testing, he
does not make a condemnation of sighted testing. This is a big difference
between you and Mr. Neidorff. Mr. Neidorff promotes, but you condemn.

If you look at the general perception of Mr.Neidorff vs. yourself, and
you believe that your viewpoints are significantly similar, then you must
look elsewhere for the cause of polarization and dissonance that clings to
you. It would appear that only your personality remains as the explaining
variable.

This may be a conscious choice, a poor choice, or an unknowing choice.
Permit me to point out, however, that abrasiveness is not necessarily the
best convincer. Being known as you are does not make you a good ambassador
for your cause. When people think of you, Arny, they think of someone who
tries to dictate from on high. They think of you as someone who loves to
bully from the pulpit. This, in itself, makes you a target. People don't
mind being convinced, but they don't want to be preached to, unless they
happen to be looking for a church.

Your choice, Arny. I suggest that you keep your beliefs, but change your
image.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I
know nothing about equipment. Thanks.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/part1/


Arny,
I amazed at the utter courtesy and open mindedness you demonstrated
by recommending this site, especially since Part 8, with great open
mindedness, includes viewpoints so different from your own.

As will shortly evolve, the viewpoints in question are the same as my
viewpoints. What you meant to say Morein is that he presented
viewpoints that differ from your twisted and warped perceptions of
my viewpoints.

I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob
Neidorff's good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility,
including my own, toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints.

Morein, you seem to have missed the fact that according to google
estimates, Neidorff made a grand total of 32 posts to RAO, and none
since the last quarter of 1996. Thus Neidorff has not been subjected
a great deal of the insanity and abuse that took place since then.
More specifically, since google searching shows that you didn't
post here until well after he left, he has not had to deal with your
weirdness.

So right up front Morein, you're presenting speculation as fact,
because there is no evidence that can be used to determine how
Neidorff would respond to the current situation.

Arny,
Bob Neidorff and I have cordial relations, and I have, in fact,
contributed via correspondence to a modification in the statement of
his F.A.Q. about speaker placement. My question is not about Bob
Neidorff. It is about you. Mr. Neidorff maintains cordial relations
with just about everyone, and his F.A.Q. has had much more of an
effect on persons entering into this hobby than your espousals.

How many times has Morein posted a gratuitous personal attack on Neidorff on
Usenet, such as your series of "Bad Scientist" posts. Bob?

You are really deluded, Bob. Neidorff is so far above RAO in his own mind
that he hasn't had time to make even one post here in what, six years? Yet,
you get a few nice email replies from him and he's your hero.

Bob, you're apparently are very weak about the concept of the golden rule.
Indeed the Morein "Golden Rule" appears to be that I'm expected to praise
and glorify you each and every time you attack me on what are invariably
bogus grounds.

If your points of view and Mr. Neidorff's are actually
coincident, or nearly so, then the factor which distinguishes Mr.
Neidorff from you is his cordiality and inclusiveness.

That would have something to do with the way you perceive him, eh Bob?

I have never
known Mr. Neidorff to attack anyone, or to interject into a thread in
an antagonistic way.

Given that Neidorff has made no more than 32 posts on RAO in the past six
years, that seems to be easy to understand.

Do you realize how laughable your alleged logic is here, Bob?

In fact, while Mr. Neidorff promotes the
advantages of blind and double blind testing, he does not make a
condemnation of sighted testing.

That's a choice he gets to make.

This is a big difference between
you and Mr. Neidorff. Mr. Neidorff promotes, but you condemn.

I tell it like it is. Everybody with a brain knows that sighted testing is
inappropriate for comparisons of components like power amps and DACs that
can be reasonably expected to sound pretty similar if they are any good.
Indeed Bob, one of the more laughable elements of your posturing against
blind tests has been the way you've had to dance around reasonable
extrapolations of your own statements.

If you look at the general perception of Mr.Neidorff vs.
yourself, and you believe that your viewpoints are significantly
similar, then you must look elsewhere for the cause of polarization
and dissonance that clings to you. It would appear that only your
personality remains as the explaining variable.

The fact that you're even saying this shows how completely lacking in
personal insight you are, Bob. You also have shown that you don't understand
the basic purpose of a FAQ, which is to avoid controversy and focus on
common ground. I've written standards documents and played the game quite
successfully. However, there's a time and a place for writing FAQs and
standards documents, and there's a time and a place for other kinds of
discussion.

This may be a conscious choice, a poor choice, or an unknowing
choice. Permit me to point out, however, that abrasiveness is not
necessarily the best convincer.

The best convincer is personal experience, which I enable people to obtain
quite freely, conveniently and anonymously at my www.pcabx.com web site.

Being known as you are does not make
you a good ambassador for your cause.

Bob, you've got me confused with someone who will do anything to avoid
conflict. As I said, there's a time for diplomacy and inclusiveness, and I
have an excellent track record of being able to work well and accomplish
much in that kind of context. OTOH, when people like Bob you lie, deceive
and misrepresent my beliefs, you obviously aren't trying to be diplomatic of
fair. Not every time is the time for diplomacy, which is one reason why
every U.S. embassy in the world has a contingent of the that well-known
group of career diplomats known as the U.S. Marine Corps assigned to it.

;-)

When people think of you, Arny,
they think of someone who tries to dictate from on high.

The scientific viewpoint that I represent is the high ground. I can't do
anything about it. The fact that my detractors are generally hostile, vile,
perverted, hysterical and mental trainwrecks is not my fault.

They think of you as someone who loves to bully from the pulpit.

The power of right remains power. I can't do anything about that. If I
exercise right, I exercise one of the strongest powers there is. if not the
strongest power.

This, in itself, makes you a target.

Well dooh!

People don't mind being convinced, but
they don't want to be preached to, unless they happen to be looking
for a church.

I just lay out the facts and let people reach whatever conclusions that they
will reach.

Your choice, Arny. I suggest that you keep your beliefs, but change
your image.

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You don't seem
to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime pastimes, it would
be really good if you did.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:59:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The best convincer is personal experience, which I enable people to obtain
quite freely, conveniently and anonymously at my www.pcabx.com web site.

Well, *not* so anonymously, it seems.

"But there might be hope. For example, I can tell you for sure that
someone using a web host registered to the Sony company has been
downloading files from www.pcabx.com in the last few weeks."

http://tinyurl.com/x7ve

This is a cautionary tale to all who intend to use his site.

And everyone should know that there is *no* discernable privacy policy
on his site, and this should be of concern to *anyone* downloading
things from the internet.

"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
news "zwerl1" wrote in message
om
Can someone please point me to a website(s) that will give me some
direction in the very basics of high end stereo? I love music; I
know nothing about equipment. Thanks.
[snip]

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You don't
seem
to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime pastimes, it would
be really good if you did.

Arny, some people are capable of change. Others, like yourself, slowly
weather in the wind.

You can't change the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST***, but it should
be relatively easy for you to stop the gratuitous making of enemies.

Bob Neidorff is an esteemed contributor, while you are just a usenet
nusiance.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You
don't seem to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime
pastimes, it would be really good if you did.

Arny, some people are capable of change. Others, like yourself, slowly
weather in the wind.

I've changed Bob, I've learned that there's no negotiating with people like
you.

You can't change the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST***, but it
should be relatively easy for you to stop the gratuitous making of
enemies.

Remind me here of who is the new enemy that I made. Surely it's not Morein,
since this google retrieval admits to being nasty well over 5 years ago:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net

From: Robert Morein
Subject: ABX, theory of
Date: 1998/03/22


"What follows is a digest of my communications with Arny Krueger, which
unfortunately
became a little nasty."


Bob Neidorff is an esteemed contributor, while you are just a usenet
nuisance.

Think about it. Neidorff's "contribution" to RAO has for over 6 years been
limited to periodic reposting of a certain FAQ, of which he was just one of
7 authors. It is notable that none of the authors have regularly posted on
RAO for more than a year, one passed on several years ago, and one never
even ever had internet access.

Bottom line is that if you have a question about audio today and it isn't
covered by the faq, none of the authors of this FAQ are going to help you.
Why esteem someone who is not going to help you more than someone who is?

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You
don't seem to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime
pastimes, it would be really good if you did.

Arny, some people are capable of change. Others, like yourself, slowly
weather in the wind.

I've changed Bob, I've learned that there's no negotiating with people
like
you.

You can't change the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST***, but it
should be relatively easy for you to stop the gratuitous making of
enemies.

Remind me here of who is the new enemy that I made. Surely it's not
Morein,
since this google retrieval admits to being nasty well over 5 years ago:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net

From: Robert Morein
Subject: ABX, theory of
Date: 1998/03/22


"What follows is a digest of my communications with Arny Krueger, which
unfortunately
became a little nasty."


Bob Neidorff is an esteemed contributor, while you are just a usenet
nuisance.

Think about it. Neidorff's "contribution" to RAO has for over 6 years been
limited to periodic reposting of a certain FAQ, of which he was just one
of
7 authors. It is notable that none of the authors have regularly posted on
RAO for more than a year, one passed on several years ago, and one never
even ever had internet access.

Bottom line is that if you have a question about audio today and it isn't
covered by the faq, none of the authors of this FAQ are going to help you.
Why esteem someone who is not going to help you more than someone who is?

Arny,
In answer to your last question --
a. I don't personally find you a helpful resource. I've passed the
prelim in both theoretical physica and electrical
engineering, and I was granted a U.S. patent relating to data
analysis. I published in the Journal of Cybernetics
(Springer) back in 1983. While you have considerable knowledge,
you lack depth. If I want to solve the String Equation,
I can handle the Hankel functions. If I want to work with
fluids, I have my choice between the Navier-Stokes equation and
Boltzman theory. You do not.

b. You have gone over to the Dark Side.

c. In relation to the kind of assistance needed by beginning and
intermediate enthusiasts of this hobby, Mr. Neidorff is
available for help. And he's made his help available without making enemies.
This is the crux of it:

"[Bob Morein]In fact, while Mr. Neidorff promotes the
advantages of blind and double blind testing, he does not make a
condemnation of sighted testing.

[Arny Krueger]That's a choice he gets to make.

[Bob Morein] This is a big difference between
you and Mr. Neidorff. Mr. Neidorff promotes, but you condemn."

And that's the choice YOU'VE made. You've chosen to CONDEMN. You've decided
to behave like the Spanish Inquisition, and you wonder why you aren't loved.
In fact, you seem to have an untoward urge toward verbal domination. And the
result? Instead of gathering the esteem you think that you and your cause
deserve, you get trashed.

Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic. And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds,
and I'm sure they have developed ABX methodologies superior to yours.
They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have at least 10
Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You
don't seem to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime
pastimes, it would be really good if you did.

Arny, some people are capable of change. Others, like yourself,
slowly weather in the wind.

I've changed Bob, I've learned that there's no negotiating with
people
like
you.

You can't change the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST***, but it
should be relatively easy for you to stop the gratuitous making of
enemies.

Remind me here of who is the new enemy that I made. Surely it's not
Morein,
since this google retrieval admits to being nasty well over 5 years
ago:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net

From: Robert Morein
Subject: ABX, theory of
Date: 1998/03/22


"What follows is a digest of my communications with Arny Krueger,
which unfortunately
became a little nasty."


Bob Neidorff is an esteemed contributor, while you are just a
usenet nuisance.

Think about it. Neidorff's "contribution" to RAO has for over 6
years been limited to periodic reposting of a certain FAQ, of which
he was just one
of
7 authors. It is notable that none of the authors have regularly
posted on RAO for more than a year, one passed on several years
ago, and one never even ever had internet access.

Bottom line is that if you have a question about audio today and it
isn't covered by the faq, none of the authors of this FAQ are going
to help you. Why esteem someone who is not going to help you more
than someone who is?

Arny,
In answer to your last question --
a. I don't personally find you a helpful resource. I've
passed the prelim in both theoretical physica and electrical
engineering, and I was granted a U.S. patent relating to
data analysis. I published in the Journal of Cybernetics
(Springer) back in 1983. While you have considerable
knowledge, you lack depth. If I want to solve the String Equation,
I can handle the Hankel functions. If I want to work with
fluids, I have my choice between the Navier-Stokes equation and
Boltzman theory. You do not.

Prove it. You seem to think you're the only person in the world who has a
technical education.

b. You have gone over to the Dark Side.

Whatever that means.

c. In relation to the kind of assistance needed by beginning
and intermediate enthusiasts of this hobby, Mr. Neidorff is
available for help. And he's made his help available without making
enemies. This is the crux of it:


"[Bob Morein]In fact, while Mr. Neidorff promotes the
advantages of blind and double blind testing, he does not make a
condemnation of sighted testing.

[Arny Krueger]That's a choice he gets to make.

[Bob Morein] This is a big difference between
you and Mr. Neidorff. Mr. Neidorff promotes, but you condemn."

And that's the choice YOU'VE made. You've chosen to CONDEMN.

What's right is right and whats wrong is wrong. Various listening test
paradigms have spheres of relevance. These spheres of relevance are largely
agreeed-upon but the consensus doesn't fit your needs so you condem me for
simply promoting audio orthodoxy.

You've
decided to behave like the Spanish Inquisition, and you wonder why
you aren't loved.

Prove that I wonder why I'm not loved!

In fact, you seem to have an untoward urge toward
verbal domination.

So now you're condemning me for making effective presentations of my
viewpoint?

And the result? Instead of gathering the esteem
you think that you and your cause deserve, you get trashed.

Look Morein, you're contradicting yourself. First you claim that I'm too
effective when I present my viewpoint, and now you're saying that I'm not
effective at all. Please tell us a consistent story.

Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic.

If I'm so ineffective Morein, why are you working to hard to trash me?

In case you didn't notice Morein, I didn't come crying on your shoulder
about why nobody here likes me. All of your verbal diarrieah on this topic
is completely gratuitous on your part.

And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds, and I'm sure they have developed ABX
methodologies superior to
yours.

This statement shows how stoopid you are Morein. If it's a better
methodology than ABX, then it's not ABX. Only technical illiterates talk
like ABX is the only DBT methodology. Yes, there are other DBT methodologies
and just to really rock your cradle, I advocate and promote them. The
leading alternative to ABX is ABC/hr and in contrast to Morein's ignorant
posturing, I clearly promote the use of ABC/hr on the www.pcabx.com home
page.

They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have
at least 10 Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

You're rather obviously missed any number of relevant points, Morein. What's
pathetic is that in more than 5 years since you last argued DBT
methodologies with me I've moved forward in a number of highly meaningful
ways, but you're still spinning your wheels.

"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
...

I suggest that first you get your head straightened out, Bob. You
don't seem to get Science at all, and given your choice of funtime
pastimes, it would be really good if you did.

Arny, some people are capable of change. Others, like yourself,
slowly weather in the wind.

I've changed Bob, I've learned that there's no negotiating with
people
like
you.

You can't change the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST***, but it
should be relatively easy for you to stop the gratuitous making of
enemies.

Remind me here of who is the new enemy that I made. Surely it's not
Morein,
since this google retrieval admits to being nasty well over 5 years
ago:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=35...40netreach.net

From: Robert Morein
Subject: ABX, theory of
Date: 1998/03/22


"What follows is a digest of my communications with Arny Krueger,
which unfortunately
became a little nasty."


Bob Neidorff is an esteemed contributor, while you are just a
usenet nuisance.

Think about it. Neidorff's "contribution" to RAO has for over 6
years been limited to periodic reposting of a certain FAQ, of which
he was just one
of
7 authors. It is notable that none of the authors have regularly
posted on RAO for more than a year, one passed on several years
ago, and one never even ever had internet access.

Bottom line is that if you have a question about audio today and it
isn't covered by the faq, none of the authors of this FAQ are going
to help you. Why esteem someone who is not going to help you more
than someone who is?

Arny,
In answer to your last question --
a. I don't personally find you a helpful resource. I've
passed the prelim in both theoretical physica and electrical
engineering, and I was granted a U.S. patent relating to
data analysis. I published in the Journal of Cybernetics
(Springer) back in 1983. While you have considerable
knowledge, you lack depth. If I want to solve the String Equation,
I can handle the Hankel functions. If I want to work with
fluids, I have my choice between the Navier-Stokes equation and
Boltzman theory. You do not.

Prove it. You seem to think you're the only person in the world who has a
technical education.

b. You have gone over to the Dark Side.

Whatever that means.

c. In relation to the kind of assistance needed by beginning
and intermediate enthusiasts of this hobby, Mr. Neidorff is
available for help. And he's made his help available without making
enemies. This is the crux of it:


"[Bob Morein]In fact, while Mr. Neidorff promotes the
advantages of blind and double blind testing, he does not make a
condemnation of sighted testing.

[Arny Krueger]That's a choice he gets to make.

[Bob Morein] This is a big difference between
you and Mr. Neidorff. Mr. Neidorff promotes, but you condemn."

And that's the choice YOU'VE made. You've chosen to CONDEMN.

What's right is right and whats wrong is wrong. Various listening test
paradigms have spheres of relevance. These spheres of relevance are
largely
agreeed-upon but the consensus doesn't fit your needs so you condem me for
simply promoting audio orthodoxy.

You've
decided to behave like the Spanish Inquisition, and you wonder why
you aren't loved.

Prove that I wonder why I'm not loved!

In fact, you seem to have an untoward urge toward
verbal domination.

So now you're condemning me for making effective presentations of my
viewpoint?

And the result? Instead of gathering the esteem
you think that you and your cause deserve, you get trashed.

Look Morein, you're contradicting yourself. First you claim that I'm too
effective when I present my viewpoint, and now you're saying that I'm not
effective at all. Please tell us a consistent story.

Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic.

If I'm so ineffective Morein, why are you working to hard to trash me?

In case you didn't notice Morein, I didn't come crying on your shoulder
about why nobody here likes me. All of your verbal diarrieah on this topic
is completely gratuitous on your part.

And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds, and I'm sure they have developed ABX
methodologies superior to
yours.

This statement shows how stoopid you are Morein. If it's a better
methodology than ABX, then it's not ABX. Only technical illiterates talk
like ABX is the only DBT methodology. Yes, there are other DBT
methodologies
and just to really rock your cradle, I advocate and promote them. The
leading alternative to ABX is ABC/hr and in contrast to Morein's ignorant
posturing, I clearly promote the use of ABC/hr on the www.pcabx.com home
page.

They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have
at least 10 Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

You're rather obviously missed any number of relevant points, Morein.
What's
pathetic is that in more than 5 years since you last argued DBT
methodologies with me I've moved forward in a number of highly meaningful
ways, but you're still spinning your wheels.

Whether you do ABX correctly is doubtful, but I have never debated the
utility of this methodology. Sony, Harmon Kardon, and others doubtless use
it in the design process. What you don't seem to understand is that the
hobbyist without access to these resources should, in his constitutionally
guaranteed right to the pursuit of happiness, compare equipment in any way
available to him, or in any way that pleases him. Furthermore, the hobbyist
is most pleased when he is at liberty to have cordial communication with
others who wish to share their imprecise observations.

Unfortunately, Arny, you tend to interfere with these communications. Your
social style is akin to the bludgeon, the rack, and the auto-da-fe. You do
not believe in live and let live. You will not suffer cordial communication
to occur, unless it satisfies your stringent guidelines. In a manner similar
to religious fanatics, you will not "suffer a witch to live."

It is a shame that you do not realize the context sensitivity of human
discourse. The strength of the proof is only in proportion to the strength
of the claim. A person who says "this amplifier sounded better to me than
that amplifier", and who communicates this belief to another person, should
not be subject to your censure.

You have two problems, Arny. One is that your science is as leaky as a
collander. The second is that you don't understand that music, and the
reproduction of, is for fun. It is a diversion. No purpose for it has ever
been divined. "Fun" has no objective measurement. No performance metric can
be applied to "fun."

If it had happened that you had applied your talents, which are not
inconsiderable, to quantifying the performance of cardiac defibrillators, or
water purifiers, or washers, or driers, your methodologies would at least be
in sync with the pertinent questions. But for some strange reason, you chose
music.

You are the wrong man for the subject.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

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


Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic.

If I'm so ineffective Morein, why are you working to hard to trash
me?

In case you didn't notice Morein, I didn't come crying on your
shoulder about why nobody here likes me. All of your verbal
diarrhea on this topic is completely gratuitous on your part.

And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds, and I'm sure they have developed ABX
methodologies superior to yours.

This statement shows how stoopid you are Morein. If it's a better
methodology than ABX, then it's not ABX. Only technical illiterates
talk like ABX is the only DBT methodology. Yes, there are other DBT
methodologies and just to really rock your cradle, I advocate and
promote them. The leading alternative to ABX is ABC/hr and in
contrast to Morein's ignorant posturing, I clearly promote the use
of ABC/hr on the www.pcabx.com home page.

They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have
at least 10 Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

You're rather obviously missed any number of relevant points,
Morein. What's pathetic is that in more than 5 years since you last
argued DBT methodologies with me I've moved forward in a number of
highly meaningful ways, but you're still spinning your wheels.

Whether you do ABX correctly is doubtful,

There's a right way to make this claim Morein. Obviously figuring out how to
do that is beyond your mental powers, so I'll clue you in. What you do is
study the published literature relating to the topic, and then compare what
I've said here and on my www.pcabx.com web site to that literature, and
compare and contrast the two.

but I have never debated the
utility of this methodology. Sony, Harmon Kardon, and others
doubtless use it in the design process.

ABX and ABC/hr are both widely used. Morein, while you were futilely trying
to sue your way into a PhD in court, we went through a little situation
called "watermarking". The preferred methodology for determining the
audibility of watermarking involved performing DBTs of either kind.
Interestingly enough, there were any number of reliable reports of positive
outcomes for the audibility of watermarking which was initially presented as
being inaudible.

What you don't seem to
understand is that the hobbyist without access to these resources
should, in his constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of
happiness, compare equipment in any way available to him, or in any
way that pleases him.

That's a choice that I surely can't take away from him. However in
accordance with my constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech, I have
the right to comment on the effectiveness of such procedures as he chooses
to use, particularly when he reports what he does on a public forum such as
Usenet.

Furthermore, the hobbyist is most pleased when
he is at liberty to have cordial communication with others who wish
to share their imprecise observations.

Again, that's a right I can't take away from anybody. If anybody feels that
they don't want to read my opinions, they can simply ignore them. I can't
make people read what I write.

Unfortunately, Arny, you tend to interfere with these communications.

When a person offers their opinions up for comment on a public forum, it is
possible that they may see some comments that they don't like. As always,
they can exercise their free will and ignore them.

Your social style is akin to the bludgeon, the rack, and the
auto-da-fe.

That would be your paranoid perception of my comments, Morein. That you find
what I write to be threatening and painful to you is due to your own lack of
conviction about what you write. This is, by the way actually quite healthy
and normal on your part Morein, because many of your ideas about audio are
so wrong that there is no rational reason for you to believe them.

You do not believe in live and let live.

Sure I do. I don't go uninvited to people's houses or places of business and
interfere in any way. I only go where I am responding to a specific or
general invitation. Everybody who reads my Usenet posts has to take a
specific voluntary action to do so.

You will not suffer cordial communication to occur, unless it satisfies
your
stringent guidelines. In a manner similar to religious fanatics, you
will not "suffer a witch to live."

This is of course just your paranoia speaking, Morein. I'm not omniscient
nor am I omnipresent. There are dozens if not 100's or 1,000's of places I
don't go, where I don't lurk, and where I don't post.

It is a shame that you do not realize the context sensitivity of human
discourse. The strength of the proof is only in proportion to the
strength of the claim. A person who says "this amplifier sounded
better to me than that amplifier", and who communicates this belief
to another person, should not be subject to your censure.

If people post their opinions on public forums with the intent that others
comment, what is wrong if someone actually comments?

You have two problems, Arny. One is that your science is as leaky as a
colander.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

The second is that you don't understand that music, and the
reproduction of, is for fun.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

It is a diversion. No purpose for it has
ever been divined. "Fun" has no objective measurement. No performance
metric can be applied to "fun."

Obviously Morein, you've confused listening to music with studying the
technology that is often used to reproduce it. Both are wonderful
activities, but they can be and often are almost perfectly irrelevant. One
case where they are irrelevant would be the act of listening to music at a
live performance. Perhaps you never see music performed live. I attend and
participate in live performances of music at least once a week. I am very
familiar with listening to music in a context where audio reproduction is
irrelevant.

If it had happened that you had applied your talents, which are not
inconsiderable, to quantifying the performance of cardiac
defibrillators, or water purifiers, or washers, or driers, your
methodologies would at least be in sync with the pertinent questions.

The things I've learned about collecting reliable evidence are relevant to
my business, and my business benefits from the skills I've learned while
studying the reproduction of music.

But for some strange reason, you chose music.

I love listening to music, and I do so whenever I reasonably can do so.

You are the wrong man for the subject.

I'm so effective at what I do Morein that I've always seriously threatened
your closely-held but largely bogus theories about audio. The google record
shows that you found my ideas about listening tests threatening 5 years ago,
and your actions today show that you find my ideas about listening tests
personally threatening to you today. I think you really ought to lighten up,
Morein. Audio is just a hobby for you, after all. Why all this public
wailing and gnashing of teeth?

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:01:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I think you really ought to lighten up,
Morein. Audio is just a hobby for you, after all. Why all this public
wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Physician, heal thyself.

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

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


Arny, you're so ineffective, it's pathetic.

If I'm so ineffective Morein, why are you working to hard to trash
me?

In case you didn't notice Morein, I didn't come crying on your
shoulder about why nobody here likes me. All of your verbal
diarrhea on this topic is completely gratuitous on your part.

And BTW, Sony has 3000 Ph.Ds, and I'm sure they have developed ABX
methodologies superior to yours.

This statement shows how stoopid you are Morein. If it's a better
methodology than ABX, then it's not ABX. Only technical illiterates
talk like ABX is the only DBT methodology. Yes, there are other DBT
methodologies and just to really rock your cradle, I advocate and
promote them. The leading alternative to ABX is ABC/hr and in
contrast to Morein's ignorant posturing, I clearly promote the use
of ABC/hr on the www.pcabx.com home page.

They're just doing routine data mining. After all, they have
at least 10 Dick Pierce's on their staff, and you have only 1/4.

You're rather obviously missed any number of relevant points,
Morein. What's pathetic is that in more than 5 years since you last
argued DBT methodologies with me I've moved forward in a number of
highly meaningful ways, but you're still spinning your wheels.

Whether you do ABX correctly is doubtful,

There's a right way to make this claim Morein. Obviously figuring out how
to
do that is beyond your mental powers, so I'll clue you in. What you do is
study the published literature relating to the topic, and then compare
what
I've said here and on my www.pcabx.com web site to that literature, and
compare and contrast the two.

but I have never debated the
utility of this methodology. Sony, Harmon Kardon, and others
doubtless use it in the design process.

ABX and ABC/hr are both widely used. Morein, while you were futilely
trying
to sue your way into a PhD in court, we went through a little situation
called "watermarking". The preferred methodology for determining the
audibility of watermarking involved performing DBTs of either kind.
Interestingly enough, there were any number of reliable reports of
positive
outcomes for the audibility of watermarking which was initially presented
as
being inaudible.

What you don't seem to
understand is that the hobbyist without access to these resources
should, in his constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of
happiness, compare equipment in any way available to him, or in any
way that pleases him.

That's a choice that I surely can't take away from him. However in
accordance with my constitutionally-guaranteed right of free speech, I
have
the right to comment on the effectiveness of such procedures as he chooses
to use, particularly when he reports what he does on a public forum such
as
Usenet.

Furthermore, the hobbyist is most pleased when
he is at liberty to have cordial communication with others who wish
to share their imprecise observations.

Again, that's a right I can't take away from anybody. If anybody feels
that
they don't want to read my opinions, they can simply ignore them. I can't
make people read what I write.

Unfortunately, Arny, you tend to interfere with these communications.

When a person offers their opinions up for comment on a public forum, it
is
possible that they may see some comments that they don't like. As always,
they can exercise their free will and ignore them.

Your social style is akin to the bludgeon, the rack, and the
auto-da-fe.

That would be your paranoid perception of my comments, Morein. That you
find
what I write to be threatening and painful to you is due to your own lack
of
conviction about what you write. This is, by the way actually quite
healthy
and normal on your part Morein, because many of your ideas about audio are
so wrong that there is no rational reason for you to believe them.

You do not believe in live and let live.

Sure I do. I don't go uninvited to people's houses or places of business
and
interfere in any way. I only go where I am responding to a specific or
general invitation. Everybody who reads my Usenet posts has to take a
specific voluntary action to do so.

You will not suffer cordial communication to occur, unless it satisfies
your
stringent guidelines. In a manner similar to religious fanatics, you
will not "suffer a witch to live."

This is of course just your paranoia speaking, Morein. I'm not omniscient
nor am I omnipresent. There are dozens if not 100's or 1,000's of places I
don't go, where I don't lurk, and where I don't post.

It is a shame that you do not realize the context sensitivity of human
discourse. The strength of the proof is only in proportion to the
strength of the claim. A person who says "this amplifier sounded
better to me than that amplifier", and who communicates this belief
to another person, should not be subject to your censure.

If people post their opinions on public forums with the intent that others
comment, what is wrong if someone actually comments?

You have two problems, Arny. One is that your science is as leaky as a
colander.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

The second is that you don't understand that music, and the
reproduction of, is for fun.

That would be a claim Morein, that you seem to find easy to make, but in
fact have never adequately backed up.

It is a diversion. No purpose for it has
ever been divined. "Fun" has no objective measurement. No performance
metric can be applied to "fun."

Obviously Morein, you've confused listening to music with studying the
technology that is often used to reproduce it. Both are wonderful
activities, but they can be and often are almost perfectly irrelevant. One
case where they are irrelevant would be the act of listening to music at a
live performance. Perhaps you never see music performed live. I attend and
participate in live performances of music at least once a week. I am very
familiar with listening to music in a context where audio reproduction is
irrelevant.

If it had happened that you had applied your talents, which are not
inconsiderable, to quantifying the performance of cardiac
defibrillators, or water purifiers, or washers, or driers, your
methodologies would at least be in sync with the pertinent questions.

The things I've learned about collecting reliable evidence are relevant to
my business, and my business benefits from the skills I've learned while
studying the reproduction of music.

But for some strange reason, you chose music.

I love listening to music, and I do so whenever I reasonably can do so.

You are the wrong man for the subject.

I'm so effective at what I do Morein that I've always seriously threatened
your closely-held but largely bogus theories about audio.

If all you've done is to "seriously threaten" my beliefs, that's a rather
small achievement.
The mere annhialation of Bob Morein's beliefs would hardly cause a ripple.

The google record
shows that you found my ideas about listening tests threatening 5 years
ago,
and your actions today show that you find my ideas about listening tests
personally threatening to you today. I think you really ought to lighten
up,
Morein. Audio is just a hobby for you, after all. Why all this public
wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Quoting from my post, earlier in the thread,
"I would like to point out that if you continually exhibited Bob Neidorff's
good will and courtesy, there would be little hostility, including my own,
toward your espousal of your ABX viewpoints."

It's not the fact that you are a ***BAD SCIENTIST*** that has resulted in
your condemnation on this group.
Rather it is your ***HOSTILITY*** and ***BAD MANNERS****.

For some reason, Arny, you have gone over to the Dark Side.

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

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


Arny Krueger crepitates
Perhaps you never see music performed live. I attend and
participate in live performances of music at least once a week. I am very
familiar with listening to music in a context where audio reproduction is
irrelevant.

By the use of the word "perhaps", Arny dishonestly creates a shortfall, a
deficiency, in his debating opponent. Arny can "perhaps" his opponent into
oblivion, without taking the effort to note whether it is true. A dirty,
below-the-belt tactic.

I have a season subscription to the Philadelphia Orchestra.