And once again, why should you be involved in the anaysis?
I never said that...
Well you... whatever.

Sudden intrusion of reality into your delusion shocks you to
momentary silence...I'm sure it will pass and the delusion will
reassert control of you.

scott has said the following. When I became frustrated at the shifting
nature of his arguments, and just said, "Whatever" he calls that
'delusion.'

scott, you are simply too stupid, too intellectually dishonest and too
confused to have a serious discussion with. While your personality
defects and circular reasoning are fine, just don't project your
shortcomings:

************************************************** **********************************
Go ahead. Form whatever opinion that you'd like. I, meanwhile, would
prefer to wait until the military determined if it can feasibly support
the COA. If it cannot, then I am 100% against it. Period.

I find this recurrent theme of yours to stifle public debate quite
fascist.
We all have to wait for the military to decide whats the right course
of action
and then tell us what they decided... but why is a secret.

I think that plans, proposals, COAs,
operations orders, or anything else pertaining to how our military
deploys its forces or otherwise plans for supporting the policies,
strategies, or national interests of the civilian leadership (whether
or not I agree with that leadership's decisions) should not be aired in
public for security reasons and should further be analyzed by people
with the experience, training, and current information necessary to do
it properly. I know that you do not have even most the basic skills to
do so.
Here comes the fascism... again.

BTW, a full-blown plan would not (and should not) come from the DNC.
But you (as a 'military expert') already knew that, right?
And you're not going to get a full public disclosure of an analysis of
this plan... especially if they decide it won't work. That would require
revealing much of our theater capabilities and worse.. our limitations.
Of course.
But you as retired military genius knew that, you just been keeping it to
yourself.
Keeping it to myself? I didn't think that something so obvious was a
secret.
So... bottom line is we're not going to get the information you claim
is required to have this debate so you insist public debate should not
take place and we should just subject ourselves to your fascist version

of the US.
Well... **** that.

So you feel that plans, OPORDs, mission analysis, COA comparisons, and
so forth, should be debated on C-SPAN. So you feel that people entirely
ignorant of the military or its capabilities, should be involved in
planning.
Now I'm starting to think you took a serious head wound.
You simply can't understand the public role in deciding
strategy at a high level?
If they're not, that is fascist.
You're playing the autocrat...not me.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
And once again, why should you be involved in the anaysis?
I never said that...
Well you... whatever.

Sudden intrusion of reality into your delusion shocks you to
momentary silence...I'm sure it will pass and the delusion will
reassert control of you.

scott has said the following. When I became frustrated at the shifting
nature of his arguments, and just said, "Whatever" he calls that
'delusion.'

scott, you are simply too stupid, too intellectually dishonest and too
confused to have a serious discussion with.

Who are you claiming to be talking to? I'm sure it isn't me
since you've repeatedly claimed I wasn't worth this.

While your personality
defects and circular reasoning are fine, just don't project your
shortcomings:

Are you always so repetitive and unsubstantiated?
That really is an awful habit on usenet... you can say whatever
you want but when there is no supporting argument or data...
it just falls on deaf ears AFAIAC. Reasonable people aren't
going to accept your word based on your former rank.
You're just another poster boy here who has to stand
on his words. The more you cast
insults when faced with disagreement the more you demonstrate
your weak inability to make a point.

Bottom line.. you can't refute my opinion and actually
claimed you lack the data to even try. Yet you spent a
week ineffectively trying to do just that.
Now I'm just specualating but I've heard making the transition
to retirement can be frightening for some people...
they just don't know what to do with themselves but
get a grip... I'm sure you'll figure it out...eventually.

ScottW

[Shhhh's abusive post deleted.] Shhhh, do everyone a favour and leave.

Regards,
124

4, your self-awareness module is functioning poorly even for a 'borg.

[Shhhh's abusive post deleted.]

Did it ever occur to you to wonder why Normals keep directing "abusive
posts" at you?

From:
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 12:54 pm
Email:

If you protest his moronic lies he calls YOU a liar. Defend yourself and you
willy nilly lose face. by lowering yourself to his level.

You are correct. As a friend of mine used to say, "Just because someone
is issued a brain doesn't mean that they know how to use it."

scott clearly needs an owner's manual.

From: 124
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:09 am
Email: "124"

Shhhh, do everyone a favour and leave.

I can't do that. I'm a compulsive teacher.

I think that it's very important that people like nob and scott get
exposed to the world for their immense stupidity.

Otherwise, some poor brainless slob (like, for example, you) might
actually believe them. Then cats would marry dogs, LPs would outsell
CDs, average audio enthusiasts would not perform blind, level-matched
tests to determine what is the best value for them, and tube bigots
would roll back consumer electronics technology to pre-transistor
levels.

I simply cannot leave: anarchy would likely result.

We can't have that now, can we?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 12:54 pm
Email:

If you protest his moronic lies he calls YOU a liar. Defend yourself and
you
willy nilly lose face. by lowering yourself to his level.

You are correct. As a friend of mine used to say, "Just because someone
is issued a brain doesn't mean that they know how to use it."

Sounds like a guy I know who says, "You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people."

BTW, joining deLudo at the cranium isn't an operation destined
to improve your credibility.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:24 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Sounds like a guy I know who says, "You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people."

Yet after your 'ideas' were thoroughly proven to be asinine, you
weren't able to let it go. You continued to defend and indefensible
position.

That falls under the 'toopid' column.

Does your friend offer any advice on debating people that employ
circular reasoning?;-)

BTW, joining deLudo at the cranium isn't an operation destined
to improve your credibility.

He made a valid point: debating with someone that has been beyond doubt
proven 'toopid' is a waste of time.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:24 pm
Email: "ScottW"


Sssh still can't stand behind his own words,
"Look, scott, no offense intended, but you are simply too stupid to
continue talking to."

Sounds like a guy I know who says, "You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people."

Yet after your 'ideas' were thoroughly proven to be asinine, you
weren't able to let it go. You continued to defend and indefensible
position.

No... stupidity is your incessant attempts change reality
with your claims. You think if you repeat this enough
it will become true?


That falls under the 'toopid' column.

Does your friend offer any advice on debating people that employ
circular reasoning?;-)

BTW, joining deLudo at the cranium isn't an operation destined
to improve your credibility.

He made a valid point: debating with someone that has been beyond doubt
proven 'toopid' is a waste of time.

So you've repeatedly said... but still you keep creating these new threads.
deLudo has difficulty with facts.... I see you do as well.

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: 124
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:09 am
Email: "124"

Shhhh, do everyone a favour and leave.

I can't do that. I'm a compulsive teacher.

With advanced intellectual demonstrations like "toopid"?


I think that it's very important that people like nob and scott get
exposed to the world for their immense stupidity.

Otherwise, some poor brainless slob (like, for example, you) might
actually believe them. Then cats would marry dogs, LPs would outsell
CDs, average audio enthusiasts would not perform blind, level-matched
tests to determine what is the best value for them, and tube bigots
would roll back consumer electronics technology to pre-transistor
levels.

I simply cannot leave: anarchy would likely result.

Nobody hiring old majors these days?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:24 pm
Email: "ScottW"


Sssh still can't stand behind his own words,
"Look, scott, no offense intended, but you are simply too stupid to
continue talking to."

Sounds like a guy I know who says, "You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people."

Yet after your 'ideas' were thoroughly proven to be asinine, you
weren't able to let it go. You continued to defend and indefensible
position.

No... stupidity is your incessant attempts change reality
with your claims. You think if you repeat this enough
it will become true?


That falls under the 'toopid' column.

Does your friend offer any advice on debating people that employ
circular reasoning?;-)

BTW, joining deLudo at the cranium isn't an operation destined
to improve your credibility.

He made a valid point: debating with someone that has been beyond doubt
proven 'toopid' is a waste of time.

So you've repeatedly said... but still you keep creating these new threads.
deLudo has difficulty with facts.... I see you do as well.

ScottW

It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over
and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his
M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to
repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them
which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way round - I
can't be
bothered to keep looking it up.
He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
.. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!
Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.
Who remembers figures like 0,16 of a db? Who cares?
Moronic snare layers think they got something to lie about in the
future just because no one will remember".

I apologise for going on about this but I want a to have a record.
To me accusation of lying, RAO or not, is a serious matter
As I foresaw Scottie is letting sleeping dogs lie waiting in ambush
to pop up when details are forgotten and he can restart.
He has done this several times before in several different threads.
It seems to be his internet technique."

I claim no kudos for forecasting the predictable behaviour
of an unpleasant piece of work of the kind that the internet
throws up time and again.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:24 pm
Email: "ScottW"

It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over
and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his
M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to
repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them
which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way round - I
can't be
bothered to keep looking it up.

Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread

Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!
Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
..PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.
Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread
Another clever thrust comes:
Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

No I did not recall every word and every figure in a 10 page article
that I last read 3 years before. No, I did not like having to download
and read the same 10 page article over and over again.
No I do not like getting sore typing fingers to nail you for the 4th.
time.
No, I do not like boring the readers over and over again.
Like this for instance. I said:
" Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!

Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

He has an answer, he has:
Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.
ScottW
Greenhill' purpose when comparing cables was to see if
his audience could detect any difference between a proprietary
Monster and a zipcord. NOT TO FIND OUT IF THEY COULD HEAR
0,16 OF A DB INSERTION LOSS IN THE MONSTER.
Any article setting out to discuss that would land the writer in the
lunatic fringe file. No one can hear it..
Any positive or negative
results were the response to a total performance difference
between these two cables And in fact in the summary table called
"Statistical analysis of the entire panel's scores" Greenhill
summarises
the Monster vs. zipcord pink noise group result thus: "Is result
psychoacoustically significant by 75% rule?" And answers:
"NO"
I anticipate another few weeks silence and then the 0.16 of a db.
midget will slither again out of the bushes. He'll get a reprint only.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread
Another clever thrust comes:
Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

No I did not recall every word and every figure in a 10 page article
that I last read 3 years before. No, I did not like having to download
and read the same 10 page article over and over again.
No I do not like getting sore typing fingers to nail you for the 4th.
time.
No, I do not like boring the readers over and over again.
Like this for instance. I said:
" Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!

Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

He has an answer, he has:
Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.
ScottW
Greenhill' purpose when comparing cables was to see if
his audience could detect any difference between a proprietary
Monster and a zipcord. NOT TO FIND OUT IF THEY COULD HEAR
0,16 OF A DB INSERTION LOSS IN THE MONSTER.
Any article setting out to discuss that would land the writer in the
lunatic fringe file. No one can hear it..
Any positive or negative
results were the response to a total performance difference
between these two cables And in fact in the summary table called
"Statistical analysis of the entire panel's scores" Greenhill
summarises
the Monster vs. zipcord pink noise group result thus: "Is result
psychoacoustically significant by 75% rule?" And answers:
"NO"

But Ludo... don't ignore the possible existence of golden eared
people... you do believe that some people are blessed with
better hearing...don't you?
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

ScottW

From: ScottW
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 3:39 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Is this,er, your way of saying that you think that he's 'toopid'?

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

So he has a golden ear and a sharp mind. Brilliant use of the
double-negative, toopid. I think that you shot your foot, tex.

"Sounds like a guy I know who says, 'You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people.'"

Glad to see you follow your own words. Now you can eat them, toopid.
After all, toopid is as toopid does.

"It is not the case that toopid is not toopid."

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

Nothing worth exploring. Even with the surplus BW available today...
it's hard to justify any being consumed by your post.


ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread
Another clever thrust comes:
Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

No I did not recall every word and every figure in a 10 page article
that I last read 3 years before. No, I did not like having to download
and read the same 10 page article over and over again.
No I do not like getting sore typing fingers to nail you for the 4th.
time.
No, I do not like boring the readers over and over again.
Like this for instance. I said:
" Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!

Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

He has an answer, he has:
Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.
ScottW
Greenhill' purpose when comparing cables was to see if
his audience could detect any difference between a proprietary
Monster and a zipcord. NOT TO FIND OUT IF THEY COULD HEAR
0,16 OF A DB INSERTION LOSS IN THE MONSTER.
Any article setting out to discuss that would land the writer in the
lunatic fringe file. No one can hear it..
Any positive or negative
results were the response to a total performance difference
between these two cables And in fact in the summary table called
"Statistical analysis of the entire panel's scores" Greenhill
summarises
the Monster vs. zipcord pink noise group result thus: "Is result
psychoacoustically significant by 75% rule?" And answers:
"NO"

But Ludo... don't ignore the possible existence of golden eared
people... you do believe that some people are blessed with
better hearing...don't you?
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

ScottW

QUOTE from above source
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

Some basics:
The very first thing that anyone , who wants to be taken
seriously when comparing components. has to do is to
MATCH LEVELS.
Are you' imputing that those panelists who heard difference
between Monster and zipcord did so BECAUSE of 0.16 OF A DB
difference in levels.?
Are you imputing that the sole purpose of this 10 page
article
in a pop audio mag was to find out the fascinating lowest audible
db difference?. That sells papers, it does.
Are you imputing that in a long article
about
differences between cables and correspondence that
followed no one spotted that fundamental
flaw and no objectivist said :" Ah look those few heard volume
difference, not difference in quality, which proves what we always
said: "Wire is wire"?
Are you imputing that Greenhill was either a moron- or
a wolf in the objectivist sheep clothing who wanted to falsify the
result
in Monster's favour?
Are you imputing that the Editor of "Stereo Review" was an

electronic illiterate as were all those who read his mag. and did not
protest?.
Are you imputing that John Atkinson and all the readers
of
Stereophile where Greenhill's article was discussed at length and all
the fervent objectivists in RAHE where I discussed it did not rise up
in arms against such travesty of science?
But you are imputing, aren't you, that it took 40 years
for a
Mr.ScottW to have a revelation and
spot this obvious gross flaw- 0.04 and/or 0.16 db difference.
And. I'm imputing that Greenhill mentioned these minute
figures
as EVIDENCE that he indeed matched levels because such difference
is inaudible, to golden ear or yours.
I'im mputing that anyone who does not know that 0.16 of a db
differnce is in fact a matched level has no business writing about
audio. His business should be to buy a good textbook of
high-school physics and amend the error they made giving him a
leaving certificate.
I'm imputing that such a functional illiterate.who sets
out to
argue and instruct others is .... you're invited to complete this
sentence.
Let's say not worth bothering about..
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

_______________________________________

One more point:
ScottW says:
But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.

Any kind of blind "testing" ie ABX/DBT using snippets is
unsuitable for determining DIFFERENCES.between components by
unselected, untrained groups of audio consumers.. This is
not an opinion.
It's a fact stated very clearly by S. Olive himself
If Olive's own words that I quoted above about poor
PERFORMANCE of his panelists as contrasted with excellent
consistency in PREFERENCE are beyond your understanding
that's tough.
S. Olive discusses at length the differnce in PERFORMANCE
between trained and untrained listeners. His says that his trained
people PERFORMED 27 times better than audio students BUT
there was no such difference in PREFERENCE.
My own belief is that training is mainly training in being
good
at blind testing- so as to perform better in a lab environment.
That's me not S. Olive.
Scottie threatens that he will follow in my traces forever.
The time to worry would be when this hair-splitting, nitpicking
envious bottom dweller would start agreeing with me.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

_______________________________________

One more point:
ScottW says:
But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.

Any kind of blind "testing" ie ABX/DBT using snippets is
unsuitable for determining DIFFERENCES.between components by
unselected, untrained groups of audio consumers..

Are you bitching about snippets or unselected untrained groups of
audio consumers?

No matter... neither is mandatory for ABX.

This is
not an opinion.
It's a fact stated very clearly by S. Olive himself
If Olive's own words that I quoted above about poor
PERFORMANCE of his panelists as contrasted with excellent
consistency in PREFERENCE are beyond your understanding
that's tough.
S. Olive discusses at length the differnce in PERFORMANCE
between trained and untrained listeners. His says that his trained
people PERFORMED 27 times better

But Ludo... you quoted Olive and said, :"This metric
accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between
loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...".
And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE....

were found among the different categories of listeners"
Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it
"unsuitable" for his task. "


So what is your point?

than audio students

Kind of off topic ... but what the hell is an audio student?

BUT
there was no such difference in PREFERENCE.

So without training you can't answer different (not determined by ABX
but some other method) but you can identify preference.
Interesting... but not conclusive of anything regarding ABX.



My own belief is that training is mainly training in being
good
at blind testing- so as to perform better in a lab environment.
That's me not S. Olive.

Thats fine Ludo but Olive didn't use ABX. It simply doesn't address
the question he was trying to answer...possibly simply because he had
more than 2 speakers to evaluate.

ScottW

I ScottW apparently intends to go on with a typical RAO
pseudodiscussion of "Who will build the strawmen fastest"
I see little point in going on toe -to-toe with someone who:
1)quotes his own ability to hear a difference of 1(one) decibel-
well within the limit of audibility for most people- as evidence that
0.16 of a db. (zero, one sixth) difference could be heard too. If the
cables were audibly different by volume then everybody not just 3 out
of 11 panelists would hear it and Monster would be a winner. By 0.16 of
a decibel!
To push this idiocy further Scottie says that recognition of
volume difference was Greenhill's PURPOSE- he knew about it. And his
foolish readers thought it was all about: "Is one cable better than the
other"

2) Refers me to Greenhill for an answer as to why he would
bother to make such a pointless joke of a "research". He does not tell
what Greenhill would say in response to such an idiot question.
Obviously Greenhill designed his research with the idea of
getting a sensible result. And on the evidence he knows infinitely more
about research and research statistics than our Scottie.
3) He denies that S.Olive's research showed that people perform
better when asked "Which one you prefer? rather than "Are they
different from each other"? Over that wording interpretation difference
he had the brass to call me a liar
When I quote S. Olive's unequivocal figures and conclusions
he clumsily attempts to divert the argument into pro or against ABX-
typical strawman building. Yes. Olive does not denounce ABX. He just
did not use it. And his results explain why. With ABX his listeners
Performance in discriminating would be even worse.

It is obviouly his delight to go on forever with his
sea-lawyer hairsplitting. It is not mine.
I believe that once one is called a liar in a discussion the
rational debate ends.
He should stick to politics.
Ludovic Mirabel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread
Another clever thrust comes:
Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

No I did not recall every word and every figure in a 10 page article
that I last read 3 years before. No, I did not like having to download
and read the same 10 page article over and over again.
No I do not like getting sore typing fingers to nail you for the 4th.
time.
No, I do not like boring the readers over and over again.
Like this for instance. I said:
" Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!

Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

He has an answer, he has:
Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.
ScottW
Greenhill' purpose when comparing cables was to see if
his audience could detect any difference between a proprietary
Monster and a zipcord. NOT TO FIND OUT IF THEY COULD HEAR
0,16 OF A DB INSERTION LOSS IN THE MONSTER.
Any article setting out to discuss that would land the writer in the
lunatic fringe file. No one can hear it..
Any positive or negative
results were the response to a total performance difference
between these two cables And in fact in the summary table called
"Statistical analysis of the entire panel's scores" Greenhill
summarises
the Monster vs. zipcord pink noise group result thus: "Is result
psychoacoustically significant by 75% rule?" And answers:
"NO"

But Ludo... don't ignore the possible existence of golden eared
people... you do believe that some people are blessed with
better hearing...don't you?
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

ScottW

QUOTE from above source
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

Some basics:
The very first thing that anyone , who wants to be taken
seriously when comparing components. has to do is to
MATCH LEVELS.

I agree... it would silly to decide to pay a lot for a cable that one
tic on the
volume control can achieve.
But that is an issue for Greenhill. Why didn't he do level matched
tests
between Monster and zip cord? I don't know.

Are you' imputing that those panelists who heard difference
between Monster and zipcord did so BECAUSE of 0.16 OF A DB
difference in levels.?

With pink noise, yes... and Greenhill agreed. Why he didn't prove
it with level matched testing is a question for him.

Are you imputing that the sole purpose of this 10 page
article
in a pop audio mag was to find out the fascinating lowest audible
db difference?.

No... but it was one of the results.. the other is that pink noise
is much more resolving material for humans than music.


That sells papers, it does.
Are you imputing that in a long article
about
differences between cables and correspondence that
followed no one spotted that fundamental
flaw and no objectivist said :" Ah look those few heard volume
difference, not difference in quality, which proves what we always
said: "Wire is wire"?

That question, quality, is not addressed by Greenhill.


Are you imputing that Greenhill was either a moron- or
a wolf in the objectivist sheep clothing who wanted to falsify the
result
in Monster's favour?

He concluded that zip cord was adequate for music. How is that
in Monsters favor?



Are you imputing that the Editor of "Stereo Review" was an

electronic illiterate as were all those who read his mag. and did not
protest?.

No.... that would you, deLudo.


Are you imputing that John Atkinson and all the readers
of
Stereophile where Greenhill's article was discussed at length and all
the fervent objectivists in RAHE where I discussed it did not rise up
in arms against such travesty of science?

I suspect they did and it is one reason why you, like Arny, no longer
post on RAHE.

But you are imputing, aren't you, that it took 40 years
for a
Mr.ScottW to have a revelation and
spot this obvious gross flaw- 0.04 and/or 0.16 db difference.

Not true... Greenhill clearly identified it as the reason for the
difference
with pink noise. It is you who have reading comprehension problems.


And. I'm imputing that Greenhill mentioned these minute
figures
as EVIDENCE that he indeed matched levels because such difference
is inaudible, to golden ear or yours.
I'im mputing that anyone who does not know that 0.16 of a db
differnce is in fact a matched level has no business writing about
audio.

Music or pink noise? My surround amp has only 1 db resolution
on volume control but I can tell you that it easy to discern and
it isn't sufficient resolution for me to feel my speakers are
exactly level matched at the listening position (damned pitched
ceiling ).

His business should be to buy a good textbook of
high-school physics and amend the error they made giving him a
leaving certificate.
I'm imputing that such a functional illiterate.who sets
out to
argue and instruct others is .... you're invited to complete this
sentence.
Let's say not worth bothering about..

Sorry deLudo... you can't argue with the data.

Ask Arny to setup .16 db difference pink noise and see if you can
PCABX them .

ScottW

wrote:
I ScottW apparently intends to go on with a typical RAO
pseudodiscussion of "Who will build the strawmen fastest"
I see little point in going on toe -to-toe with someone who:
1)quotes his own ability to hear a difference of 1(one) decibel-
well within the limit of audibility for most people- as evidence that
0.16 of a db. (zero, one sixth) difference could be heard too. If the
cables were audibly different by volume then everybody not just 3 out
of 11 panelists would hear it and Monster would be a winner. By 0.16 of
a decibel!

Very interesting that you now claim everyone must have the same hearing
acuity.


To push this idiocy further Scottie says that recognition of
volume difference was Greenhill's PURPOSE- he knew about it.

Anothter blatan lie. I said no such thing.
All I said was that it was one outcome, probably not expected.

And his
foolish readers thought it was all about: "Is one cable better than the
other"

2) Refers me to Greenhill for an answer as to why he would
bother to make such a pointless joke of a "research". He does not tell
what Greenhill would say in response to such an idiot question.
Obviously Greenhill designed his research with the idea of
getting a sensible result. And on the evidence he knows infinitely more
about research and research statistics than our Scottie.
3) He denies that S.Olive's research showed that people perform
better when asked "Which one you prefer? rather than "Are they
different from each other"? Over that wording interpretation difference
he had the brass to call me a liar

deLudo... please quit claiming things I never said.


When I quote S. Olive's unequivocal figures and conclusions
he clumsily attempts to divert the argument into pro or against ABX-
typical strawman building.

Wasn't that your argument from the beginning. Thats what I was
saying,
that Olives work isn't relevant to a discussion of ABX.

Nice to see you finally agree with me.

Yes. Olive does not denounce ABX. He just
did not use it. And his results explain why. With ABX his listeners
Performance in discriminating would be even worse.

Conclusion not supported at all by the available data.

deLudo.... if you wanted to know peoples preference among 4 speakers,
please design a test protocol using ABX that would identify peoples
preference. Perhaps you will finally see why Olive chose not to use
ABX
and you could stop making crap up.

ScottW

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he
aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.


Of course not, why concern yourself with details.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts
straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.


Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.



__________________________________

One more point:
ScottW says:
But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.

Any kind of blind "testing" ie ABX/DBT using snippets is
unsuitable for determining DIFFERENCES.between components by
unselected, untrained groups of audio consumers.

But you want people to believe that it unsuitable for anybody trained or
not. You simply reject that any form of bias controlled listening for
difference is neccessary.

.. This is
not an opinion.
It's a fact stated very clearly by S. Olive himself
If Olive's own words that I quoted above about poor
PERFORMANCE of his panelists as contrasted with excellent
consistency in PREFERENCE are beyond your understanding
that's tough.
S. Olive discusses at length the differnce in PERFORMANCE
between trained and untrained listeners. His says that his trained
people PERFORMED 27 times better than audio students BUT
there was no such difference in PREFERENCE.
My own belief is that training is mainly training in being
good
at blind testing- so as to perform better in a lab environment.
That's me not S. Olive.

No that's you. Training does indeed help people listen better, lab or no
lab.

Scottie threatens that he will follow in my traces forever.
The time to worry would be when this hair-splitting, nitpicking
envious bottom dweller would start agreeing with me.
Ludovic Mirabel

Well then why don't you stop with all the bull**** and admit to what the
rest of the audio researchers agree on? ABX is a good way to listen for
difference.

Mr. Bug Eater, did you finish your bucket of larvae already?

Well then why don't you stop with all the bull**** and admit to what the
rest of the audio researchers agree on? ABX is a good way to listen for
difference.

Tell us how you conduct your own aBxism "tests", Mickey. Oh wait -- you're
not a researcher, are you? Well, surely you did some aBxism rituals when you
"designed" those Proac knockoff speakers you tried to market. Be a good
little numbnuts and publish the results of the "tests" you did on your own
speakers. Unless, of course, you'd rather run away and hide again rather
than admit you don't have any experience with any DBTs of any sort. As in
none, zero, zip, zilch, nada. That's about the size of it, right, McMoron?
Nothing to be ashamed of really, though -- none of your fellow religionists
have actually subjected themselves to any "tests" either. After all, what
would a religionist amount to if he wasn't a towering hypocrite? ;-)

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 3 2006 2:21 pm
Email:

Well then why don't you stop with all the bull**** and admit to what the
rest of the audio researchers agree on? ABX is a good way to listen for
difference.

I have a question, nob:

If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the same, and all
preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds the same, why would one
even bother to test them? If the measurements are within 'audible
limits' as has been discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless
for hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS and CD. We know
that some people have preferences both ways. We know that speakers
sound different. We know that speaker selection is a preference. There
is no need to blind test.

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a manufacturer. Are you?
And if you are, I think that you should use whatever test protocol
suits your purposes as an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally,
I get the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and NOT 'audio
researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

So for you, apparently, these tests would be a colossal waste of time
given your position. For others, who seem to think that wire can sound
different, who cares? If they have the money and they want to spend it
on wire, what difference does it make to you?

Do you point out to automotive people that a Ferrari is a waste of
money, since other automoblies can match that performance level, some
for about $300,000 less? If no, why not?

So really, what is your point? Does this just give you some 'knowledge'
that you feel compelled to try to compel us to use?

PS: please feel free to blind-test a Ferrari at 200 MPH.;-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, Mar 3 2006 2:21 pm
Email:

Well then why don't you stop with all the bull**** and admit to what the
rest of the audio researchers agree on? ABX is a good way to listen for
difference.

I have a question, nob:

If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the same, and all
preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds the same, why would one
even bother to test them?

Actually, he doesn't !!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Poor you, Now that the RAOs prime shyster and the former flea market
hifi huckster joined forces you must be trembling in your boots.
The huckster achieved his goal. You paid him a compliment of taking
notice of his chewed over leavings from Krueger's table. You made his
weekend.
The shyster sounds a little hesitant. I guessed his profession from
internal evidence: the nature of his nit-picking argumentation without
faintest relation to the interest in music: the "When did you stop
beating your wife?" kind.
He exasperated you and he having to deal with him exasperates me. He
reminds me very much of his brother- in- arms Marcus in RAHE whose
profession I also guessed . They must have been learning from the same
prof.
His typical latest is challenging me to design a menu for a
preference ABX session. Why me? He knows that I think that in audio
component comparison ABX is a joke in a bad taste. As witnessed by the
fact that no articles comparing components by ABX appeared in JAES and
none with a positive outcome anywhere else.
I'm sure Olive would have no problem designing an elimination type
comparison between four or twenty speakers if he wanted to. One down,
three to go type of thing. The real Problem would be that he would get
another typical ABX result: "They all sound the same". So there would
be nothing to eliminate.
But Scottie does not really mean anything experiment- tested. He
just wants to hand me another red herring of his design for him to come
out tops.
No such luck.
By the way when did his wife stop beating him for being an obnoxious,
pedantic bore?
Ludovic Mirabel
-------------------------------


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From:
Date: Fri, Mar 3 2006 2:21 pm
Email:

Well then why don't you stop with all the bull**** and admit to what the
rest of the audio researchers agree on? ABX is a good way to listen for
difference.

I have a question, nob:

If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the same, and all
preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds the same, why would one
even bother to test them? If the measurements are within 'audible
limits' as has been discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless
for hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS and CD. We know
that some people have preferences both ways. We know that speakers
sound different. We know that speaker selection is a preference. There
is no need to blind test.

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a manufacturer. Are you?
And if you are, I think that you should use whatever test protocol
suits your purposes as an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally,
I get the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and NOT 'audio
researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

So for you, apparently, these tests would be a colossal waste of time
given your position. For others, who seem to think that wire can sound
different, who cares? If they have the money and they want to spend it
on wire, what difference does it make to you?

Do you point out to automotive people that a Ferrari is a waste of
money, since other automoblies can match that performance level, some
for about $300,000 less? If no, why not?

So really, what is your point? Does this just give you some 'knowledge'
that you feel compelled to try to compel us to use?

PS: please feel free to blind-test a Ferrari at 200 MPH.;-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com


If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the
same, and all preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds
the same, why would one even bother to test them?

Not all of them do.

If the
measurements are within 'audible limits' as has been
discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless for
hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

Common spec sheets are far from sufficient to determine from measurements
that the piece of equipment is sonically blameless.

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS and
CD.

So say the least.

We know that some people have preferences both ways.

Currently its about 99.99% prefer SS, and the rest either don't know or
prefer toobs.

We know that speakers sound different. We know that
speaker selection is a preference. There is no need to
blind test.

Not so fast. Even though hearing differences between speakers is generally
pretty easy, there's still the matter of preference. Preferences can be
affected by sight. For example, if you know that a certain speaker is highly
regarded and another is unknown, will your evaluation be guided by just
sound quality or will it be affected by the reputation of the
highly-regarded speaker?

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a
manufacturer. Are you? And if you are, I think that you
should use whatever test protocol suits your purposes as
an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally, I get
the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and
NOT 'audio researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

It's all about how badly you want to reliably know which audio products
sound best.

If you want an evaluation that is colored by your preconceived notions, or
the appearance or reputation of the products being compared, then by all
means do sighted evaluations.

If you want to know which is best based solely on sound quality, then do
bias-controlled evaluations.

It's a matter of personal choice - the means to achieve either outcome are
well-known and can be used with only a reasonable amount of difficulty.

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 6:36 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the
same, and all preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds
the same, why would one even bother to test them?

Not all of them do.

Please provide a list of those currently-manufactured CD or DVD
players, preamps, and amps that do not, excluding PC-based amps,
speakers, etc.

Since you have a proven bias against tubed equipment, let's limit this
to SS gear.

If the
measurements are within 'audible limits' as has been
discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless for
hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

Common spec sheets are far from sufficient to determine from measurements
that the piece of equipment is sonically blameless.

So where is the compendium from you, nob, 124, and Sullivan showing
those that 'don't make the grade'?

Do us all a *real* service and show us those that 'failed.'

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS and
CD.

So say the least.

Whatever that means.

We know that some people have preferences both ways.

Currently its about 99.99% prefer SS, and the rest either don't know or prefer toobs.

So all this effort that you expend is to 'educate' the .01% that want
to use tubed equipment on the 'error' of their ways.

Brilliant.

We know that speakers sound different. We know that
speaker selection is a preference. There is no need to
blind test.

Not so fast. Even though hearing differences between speakers is generally pretty easy, there's still the matter of preference. Preferences can be affected by sight. For example, if you know that a certain speaker is highly regarded and another is unknown, will your evaluation be guided by just
sound quality or will it be affected by the reputation of the
highly-regarded speaker?

Who cares? It's a preference.

I prefer to have name-brand gear in the absence of other knowledge.
I'll buy a Nikon or a Canon camera over a no-name every time. The odds
are far better that I'll get quality.

And I cannot be wrong in doing things that way.

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a
manufacturer. Are you? And if you are, I think that you
should use whatever test protocol suits your purposes as
an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally, I get
the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and
NOT 'audio researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

It's all about how badly you want to reliably know which audio products sound best.

I already made that decision: I bought whatever sounded best to me.

If you want an evaluation that is colored by your preconceived notions, or the appearance or reputation of the products being compared, then by all means do sighted evaluations.

Thanks for your permission.;-)

By the way, if I do it that way and say that I think my Bryston amp
sounds great compared to the Krell gear that I compared it to, are you
still going to tell me how wrong that I am? LOL!

If you want to know which is best based solely on sound quality, then do bias-controlled evaluations.

And as I said, to most hobbyists it's a waste of time.

It's a matter of personal choice - the means to achieve either outcome are well-known and can be used with only a reasonable amount of difficulty.

DBTs are not 'reasonably' difficult. I look at the threads about Jenn's
willingness to DBT LP vs. a CD of an LP. Suddenly, there were pages
about how to properly set it up which were *very* difficult to set up.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 6:36 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the
same, and all preamps sound the same, and all wire
sounds the same, why would one even bother to test them?

Not all of them do.

Please provide a list of those currently-manufactured CD
or DVD players, preamps, and amps that do not, excluding
PC-based amps, speakers, etc.

Since you have a proven bias against tubed equipment,
let's limit this to SS gear.

Asked and answered.

If the
measurements are within 'audible limits' as has been
discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless for
hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

Common spec sheets are far from sufficient to determine
from measurements
that the piece of equipment is sonically blameless.

So where is the compendium from you, nob, 124, and
Sullivan showing those that 'don't make the grade'?

I don't think it exists.

Do us all a *real* service and show us those that
'failed.'

I manage to avoid them.

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS
and CD.

To say the least.

Whatever that means.

Huh?

We know that some people have preferences both ways.

Currently its about 99.99% prefer SS, and the rest
either don't know or prefer toobs.

So all this effort that you expend is to 'educate' the
.01% that want to use tubed equipment on the 'error' of
their ways.

You brought the issue up.

Brilliant.

Actually like almost all RAO debates, its pretty stupid.

We know that speakers sound different. We know that
speaker selection is a preference. There is no need to
blind test.

Not so fast. Even though hearing differences between
speakers is generally pretty easy, there's still the
matter of preference. Preferences can be affected by
sight. For example, if you know that a certain speaker
is highly regarded and another is unknown, will your
evaluation be guided by just sound quality or will it be
affected by the reputation of the
highly-regarded speaker?

Who cares? It's a preference.

Presumably, preference for sound quality.

I prefer to have name-brand gear in the absence of other
knowledge. I'll buy a Nikon or a Canon camera over a
no-name every time. The odds are far better that I'll get
quality.

Since my family and myself happen to primarily own and recommend Canons,
moot point.

However a comparison between say Souns Faber and Behringer is not a
comparison between no-name equipment. Both are recognized brands with
lengthy track records.

Yet another straw man argument.

And I cannot be wrong in doing things that way.

Huh?

For the record - I can be wrong and have been wrong. Just not a lot of the
time.

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a
manufacturer. Are you? And if you are, I think that you
should use whatever test protocol suits your purposes as
an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally, I get
the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and
NOT 'audio researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

It's all about how badly you want to reliably know which
audio products sound best.

I already made that decision: I bought whatever sounded
best to me.

Based on what critera - just listening or were you highly biased while
listening?

If you want an evaluation that is colored by your
preconceived notions, or the appearance or reputation
of the products being compared, then by all means do
sighted evaluations.

Thanks for your permission.;-)

By the way, if I do it that way and say that I think my
Bryston amp sounds great compared to the Krell gear that
I compared it to, are you still going to tell me how
wrong that I am? LOL!

Yet another straw man argument. Yawn.

BTW Mr. Shhh! where do you get all that straw? Your head?

If you want to know which is best based solely on sound
quality, then do bias-controlled evaluations.

And as I said, to most hobbyists it's a waste of time.

Just another unsupported assertion. Yawn.

It's a matter of personal choice - the means to achieve
either outcome are well-known and can be used with only
a reasonable amount of difficulty.

DBTs are not 'reasonably' difficult. I look at the
threads about Jenn's willingness to DBT LP vs. a CD of an
LP. Suddenly, there were pages about how to properly set
it up which were *very* difficult to set up.

And, you don't understand how special the reasons why are, do you Mr. Shhh!?

There we go on again about "sighted bias".
It exists . It affects especially powerfully those who don't care very
much if they
are listening at home or in a store to one kind of wallpaper noise or
another , to one kind of
deafening noise or another produced by the combined efforts of the
performers and their audience at a rock concert, or when "listening" to
one kind of car "music" or another.
They are ready-made advertisers fast food.
They are what makes American business great and booming. It is that
kind of bias that makes you quote triumphantly that 99% orefer solid
state.
The day I'd agree with 99% about anything involving art: music and
music reproduction, literature, painting I'd know that Alzheimer did
its work.
It is the small fraction of that 1% that make the lasting difference.

You have no evidence about how many anf what kind of people are
affected by brand names. Everybody? Prove it. A poet or a mathematician
as much as an average teenager?

You don't know. But you talk as though it were a universally, evenly
distributed characteristic quite independent of musical experience and
training, education, sophistication , gender and age.
Actually I do think choosing blind is easier. It helps to
concentrate.
And that's it. Period. Any protocol such as your ABX is destructive of
my attention and the evidence that it helps others to discriminate does
notexist. On the contrary so far everything has been coming up
"the same" in ABX sessions..
You're putting yourself in an untenable position when you say
"That's because IT IS all the same: amps , preamps, cdplayers etc. And
loudspeakers are not worth testing because "Everybody knows they are
different". So in fact nothing in audio benefits from your
"testing".
And in reality NO ABX reports with a positive outcome ever
appeared in a scientific, peer reviewed mag, such as JAES,
Arny you're too bright not to see the pointlessness of such
argument.
Why don't you give it a rest? Retire to a Buddhist monastery for
a year or two of meditation. I'm told it does wonders .
Ludovic Mirabel


Arny Krueger wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com


If all amps sound the same, and all CD players sound the
same, and all preamps sound the same, and all wire sounds
the same, why would one even bother to test them?

Not all of them do.

If the
measurements are within 'audible limits' as has been
discussed in other threads, it seems very pointless for
hobbyists to bother with. Just read the spec sheet.

Common spec sheets are far from sufficient to determine from measurements
that the piece of equipment is sonically blameless.

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS and
CD.

So say the least.

We know that some people have preferences both ways.

Currently its about 99.99% prefer SS, and the rest either don't know or
prefer toobs.

We know that speakers sound different. We know that
speaker selection is a preference. There is no need to
blind test.

Not so fast. Even though hearing differences between speakers is generally
pretty easy, there's still the matter of preference. Preferences can be
affected by sight. For example, if you know that a certain speaker is highly
regarded and another is unknown, will your evaluation be guided by just
sound quality or will it be affected by the reputation of the
highly-regarded speaker?

I do not claim to be an 'audio researcher' or a
manufacturer. Are you? And if you are, I think that you
should use whatever test protocol suits your purposes as
an audio researcher or manufacturer. Personally, I get
the impression that most of us here are hobbyists, and
NOT 'audio researchers' or 'manufacturers.'

It's all about how badly you want to reliably know which audio products
sound best.

If you want an evaluation that is colored by your preconceived notions, or
the appearance or reputation of the products being compared, then by all
means do sighted evaluations.

If you want to know which is best based solely on sound quality, then do
bias-controlled evaluations.

It's a matter of personal choice - the means to achieve either outcome are
well-known and can be used with only a reasonable amount of difficulty.

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Tues, Mar 7 2006 9:13 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Please provide a list of those currently-manufactured CD
or DVD players, preamps, and amps that do not, excluding
PC-based amps, speakers, etc.
Since you have a proven bias against tubed equipment,
let's limit this to SS gear.

Asked and answered.

Please provide where this list can be located, then.

Unless you're saying that all SS equipment is the same, which
apparently your position.

So where is the compendium from you, nob, 124, and
Sullivan showing those that 'don't make the grade'?

I don't think it exists.

Fine. Name two SS amplifiers that have failed then.

Do us all a *real* service and show us those that
'failed.'

I manage to avoid them.

Which SS CD players, amplifiers, and preamplifiers do you avoid?

We know that tubes and LP can sound different from SS
and CD.
To say the least.
Whatever that means.

Huh?

How dishonest of you. You go back, edit what you said, then act
surprised.

Is that a 'debating trade' tactic?

I prefer to have name-brand gear in the absence of other
knowledge. I'll buy a Nikon or a Canon camera over a
no-name every time. The odds are far better that I'll get
quality.

Since my family and myself happen to primarily own and recommend Canons,
moot point.

Missed point noted.

However a comparison between say Souns Faber and Behringer is not a
comparison between no-name equipment. Both are recognized brands with
lengthy track records.

Which one is better?

Yet another straw man argument.

Of your own creation.

And I cannot be wrong in doing things that way.

Huh?

For the record - I can be wrong and have been wrong. Just not a lot of the
time.

And I buy things based on what I like. I've never been wrong.

I already made that decision: I bought whatever sounded
best to me.

Based on what critera - just listening or were you highly biased while
listening?

Based on preference. "What I like." That's what criteria I make my
purchases on. So I was just listening.

And as I said, to most hobbyists it's a waste of time.

Just another unsupported assertion. Yawn.

An assertion that happens to be true. Yawn.

DBTs are not 'reasonably' difficult. I look at the
threads about Jenn's willingness to DBT LP vs. a CD of an
LP. Suddenly, there were pages about how to properly set
it up which were *very* difficult to set up.

And, you don't understand how special the reasons why are, do you Mr. Shhh!?

In that particular case? Sure. In any case? They are too difficult and
time-consuming to be worth it for the average hobbyist. They will buy
what they like.

If someone wants to do DBTs, fine. If somebody doesn't, fine. Both
positions are equally valid to that person.

And there is no way that anyone can be 'wrong' using either selection
criteria.