I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert, this is just a thought so be easy
on me)

Using DBTs we can determine what the smallest difference a human is
able to detect is. For example, slight changes in pitch or volume.
There is a level that is small enough that the person is unable to
detect the difference, but at twice the change the person can tell the
difference.

So lets say that no one is able to reliably tell the difference between
speaker cable A and speaker cable B in a DBT. Lets also say that no
one is able to tell the difference between amp A and amp B in a DBT.

....but what if enough of these things added together does produce a
perceptible difference? (Obviously this doesn't really blow away the
DBT argument - its more that it shows that the way we do the tests is
not adequate). I mean, I doubt they are out there doing double blind
tests with hundreds of permutations of high end audio gear all the time
- the cost would be amazing.

I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of
a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that
(also because of cost). ...but that's another argument and I'm sure
I'm going to catch enough flak for this one already

"j." wrote in message
ps.com...
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert, this is just a thought so be easy
on me)

Using DBTs we can determine what the smallest difference a human is
able to detect is. For example, slight changes in pitch or volume.
There is a level that is small enough that the person is unable to
detect the difference, but at twice the change the person can tell the
difference.

So lets say that no one is able to reliably tell the difference between
speaker cable A and speaker cable B in a DBT. Lets also say that no
one is able to tell the difference between amp A and amp B in a DBT.

...but what if enough of these things added together does produce a
perceptible difference? (Obviously this doesn't really blow away the
DBT argument - its more that it shows that the way we do the tests is
not adequate). I mean, I doubt they are out there doing double blind
tests with hundreds of permutations of high end audio gear all the time
- the cost would be amazing.

I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of
a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that
(also because of cost). ...but that's another argument and I'm sure
I'm going to catch enough flak for this one already


Did you come yet?



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

"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure this argument
must have come up before, but I was unable to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this - I'm just
trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying to determine
what it is.

"j." wrote in message
oups.com
Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must
have been mentioned before - but I think there's a
pretty compelling argument as to why double blind tests
aren't always the be all end all. (yeah, this could
get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure
this argument must have come up before, but I was unable
to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this -
I'm just trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying
to determine what it is.

The consensus among Robert and Art is pretty obvious - they hate DBTs. This
is pretty common on RAO - its a rite of passage for people who want to avoid
trouble with George Middius who tries to rule this place.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 05:57:12 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The consensus among Robert and Art is pretty obvious - they hate DBTs. This
is pretty common on RAO - its a rite of passage for people who want to avoid
trouble with George Middius who tries to rule this place.

As we're supposedly obsessed with you, Arnie, so are you obsessed with
George.

In your mind all roads lead to Middius, it seems.

On 24 Jun 2006 00:59:14 -0700, "j." wrote:

How do we spell your name?

"j." wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

It's a forgery by Brian L. McCarty.

"j." wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure this argument
must have come up before, but I was unable to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this - I'm just
trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying to determine
what it is.



This argument has been going on in audio newsgroups for at least fifteen
years.

There is a consensus that the tool can be useful for audiometric and
development work....so long as the effct being examined is identified and
users trained to hear it, and with the recognition that probably 50% of the
people will be hopeless and have to be thrown out of the test after the
training stage.

There is a consensus that most people can hear differences in audio level
when measuring with broadband white noise.

Beyond that there is no consensus.

Blind testing by itself does prevent a listener bias based on the knowledge
of which equipment is being testing. And this can influence results (a
sub-argument is always the difference between "can" and "does"). To this
degree it is scientific and pretty much beyond reproach. Advocates claim
that if an affect that is perceived when equipment is identified disapperars
under blind conditions, it is "proof" that the differences were imaginary.

The primary argument against comparative blind testing (particularly ABX
blind testing) is that it violates normal human musical listening and signal
processing so that it itself is an intervening variable....which is an
absolute "no..no" in test design. This is further heightened by the fact
that many attributes audiophiles hold dear, e.g. depth of image,
instrumental "air", etc. are to some degree artifacts concocted by the brain
to create the illusion of real music played in real space. The testing
seems particularly to destroy the ability to perceive this, according to
many. Advocates call it "imagination". Opponents call it "intervention".
Unfortunately this aspect of ear/brain processing has not been pinned down,
leaving the field wide-open to speculation.

Another facit of the argument involves "preference" versus "identity". Many
folks who are anti-ABX testing are not against blind testing per se (in the
sense of blind A-B preference testing) but oppose ABX testing because it is
a different kind of test...one that requires identification of differences,
a cognitive function versus preference, which is a holistic function
involving the emotions as well.. There has never been controlled, scientific
research done that correlates the information provided with the blind ABX
testing with other forms of testing (both blind and non-blind) in
determining whether differences that should be audible in audio euipment are
more or less readily perceived.

Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn
religiosity:

* the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for
audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used
in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to
produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener,
and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for).

* the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable
under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the
normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect
instrument for equipment evaluation purposes.

Various means of attempting to research the issue have been rejected by one
side or the other, and thus it remains a matter of religion.

You might research the archives of RAHE for a long history of these issues.
Other forums contain substantial discussion as well, but oftern with more
noise/content ratio.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"j." wrote in message
oups.com
Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must
have been mentioned before - but I think there's a
pretty compelling argument as to why double blind tests
aren't always the be all end all. (yeah, this could
get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure
this argument must have come up before, but I was unable
to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this -
I'm just trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying
to determine what it is.

The consensus among Robert and Art is pretty obvious - they hate DBTs.
This is pretty common on RAO - its a rite of passage for people who want
to avoid trouble with George Middius who tries to rule this place.
Arny, see the note about the forgery in this thread. McCarty is acting up
again. However, an additional comment is required regarding what you say
about my position. I have stated several times that I would value an ABX
device such as the one you used to make. Now, as to whether I "hate" double
blind tests, I neither hate them, nor love them. Sighted tests also have
failures.

Harry, your post is beautiful, quotable, and FAQ quality.

Regards,
Bob Morein

"j." wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure this argument
must have come up before, but I was unable to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this - I'm just
trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying to determine
what it is.


evidently not.
Keep on wanking.



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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"j." wrote in message
oups.com
Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must
have been mentioned before - but I think there's a
pretty compelling argument as to why double blind tests
aren't always the be all end all. (yeah, this could
get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure
this argument must have come up before, but I was unable
to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this -
I'm just trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying
to determine what it is.

The consensus among Robert and Art is pretty obvious - they hate DBTs.
This is pretty common on RAO - its a rite of passage for people who want
to avoid trouble with George Middius who tries to rule this place.


If I really wanted to avoid trouble with George,
I would have accepted his marriage proposal.



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

j. said:

You're right - you're no expert.
Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure this argument
must have come up before, but I was unable to locate the thread.

The merits of aBxism aside, you're reseponding to a nasty troll name of
Bwian McLardass. It's pointless to reply to his crap.



--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"j." wrote in message
ps.com...
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert, this is just a thought so be easy
on me)

Using DBTs we can determine what the smallest difference a human is
able to detect is. For example, slight changes in pitch or volume.
There is a level that is small enough that the person is unable to
detect the difference, but at twice the change the person can tell the
difference.

So lets say that no one is able to reliably tell the difference between
speaker cable A and speaker cable B in a DBT. Lets also say that no
one is able to tell the difference between amp A and amp B in a DBT.

...but what if enough of these things added together does produce a
perceptible difference? (Obviously this doesn't really blow away the
DBT argument - its more that it shows that the way we do the tests is
not adequate). I mean, I doubt they are out there doing double blind
tests with hundreds of permutations of high end audio gear all the time
- the cost would be amazing.

What you say is quite true. It's definitely possible to conceive of a test
where a single change is inaudible, but a combination of 2 or more changes
at once IS audible. But I fail to see how that burdens DBT specifically.
It would seem to apply to any test protocol.

When you're musing over objections to DBT, always ask yourself "compared to
what?"

Norm Strong

wrote in message
news
When you're musing over objections to DBT, always ask yourself "compared
to what?"



Reality



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

wrote:

What you say is quite true. It's definitely possible to conceive of a test
where a single change is inaudible, but a combination of 2 or more changes
at once IS audible. But I fail to see how that burdens DBT specifically.
It would seem to apply to any test protocol.

When you're musing over objections to DBT, always ask yourself "compared to
what?"

Norm Strong

You're right of course - the post was poorly named and I can see now
that I really should have gone about asking my question in a different
way!

Thanks to everyone who took the time to provide some information on
this. ...and Harry - thanks, your post was full of great information.

....as for the comment about this being a forgery by Brian L. McCarty -
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!

Jason

"j." wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

What you say is quite true. It's definitely possible to conceive of a
test
where a single change is inaudible, but a combination of 2 or more
changes
at once IS audible. But I fail to see how that burdens DBT specifically.
It would seem to apply to any test protocol.

When you're musing over objections to DBT, always ask yourself "compared
to
what?"

Norm Strong

You're right of course - the post was poorly named and I can see now
that I really should have gone about asking my question in a different
way!

Thanks to everyone who took the time to provide some information on
this. ...and Harry - thanks, your post was full of great information.

...as for the comment about this being a forgery by Brian L. McCarty -
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!

Jason

Jason, I'm Bob Morein, a long time poster to usenet. I can be reached at
(215) 646-4894. Brian L. McCarty is a long-time wannabe investment scammer,
identity thief, and general noxious pest, who posts under numerous false
identities. The usenet terminology for a false identity is "sockpuppet."
McCarty has a particular interest in impersonating me, because for some
years now, I have been publicizing McCarty's activities, both on usenet, and
via his scam websites, http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com. McCarty would love to paint me in a bad light,
since I serve as one of the principle obstacles to success of his attempted
investment frauds.

McCarty uses a wide variety of false identities, "Sylvan Morein", "OFFICIAL
RAM BLUEBOOK", names of other living persons, completely fictitious names,
and names made up for the occasion. He does not post under his own name,
except for occasional denials that he posts to usenet at all.

When McCarty impersonates me, he usually makes a gratuitous insult. In your
case, he said "You're right - you're no expert. Get lost." I always try to
help, and I am always polite, with the exception of two persons who I feel
are themselves excessively obnoxious: Mike McKelvy, and Arny Krueger. But in
the case of Arny, I credit him with considerable technical knowledge and
experience, although I do not agree with the way he expresses himself. Mike
McKelvy is unfortunately not in that category.

I extend my best wishes to you, and look forward to your continued
participation in rec.audio.opinion. Here is the FAQ I post about Brian L.
McCarty:

OFFICIAL RAM BLUEBOOK VALUATION" is actually Brian L. McCarty, a pest on
rec.audio.marketplace, where he accuses innocent sellers of various
misdeeds. He appears to be a pathological liar, with unknown motivations.

McCarty is the owner of websites http://www.coralseastudios.com, and
http://www.worldjazz.com, both of which have used fraudulent advertising
inattempts to attract investors. Both have been unsuccessful.

McCarty is an American expatriate, originally from the Chicago area, then LA
where he worked as a sound mixer, currently living in Cairns Australia,
where he manages the Baskin-Robbins ice cream franchise located at
Shop G6, 59 The Esplanade
Cairns QLD 4870
07 4051 4034

McCarty lives in the Coral Sands apartment complex at 65 Vasey Esplanade,
Trinity beach, a bit north of metropolitan Cairns.

Baskin-Robbins Australia may be contacted at
.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


This argument has been going on in audio newsgroups for
at least fifteen years.

There is a consensus that the tool can be useful for
audiometric and development work....so long as the effct
being examined is identified and users trained to hear
it, and with the recognition that probably 50% of the
people will be hopeless and have to be thrown out of the
test after the training stage.

This so-called consensus is a fabrication of Harry Lavo's fevered mind.

There is a consensus that most people can hear
differences in audio level when measuring with broadband
white noise.

Wrong again - just about everybody who can hear at all can detect
differences in level with broadband noise.

Beyond that there is no consensus.

Wrong again. There's a consensus among just about everybody who gets
science and experimental design that bias controls are an important
component of listening tests related to audible differences between audio
gear.

Blind testing by itself does prevent a listener bias
based on the knowledge of which equipment is being
testing.

This is one reason why Harry avoids using bias-controlled listening tests.
His cherished beliefs about audio require that the correct identity of the
equipment being tested be known to the listener, in order to be validated.
As soon as you introduce bias-controls, most of his cherished beliefs simply
disappear.

And this can influence results (a sub-argument
is always the difference between "can" and "does"). To
this degree it is scientific and pretty much beyond
reproach. Advocates claim that if an affect that is
perceived when equipment is identified disapperars under
blind conditions, it is "proof" that the differences were
imaginary.

Again, Harry is making up scientific facts as they go along. In fact all
that is proven under these conditions is that we have yet another case where
bias controls made supposed audible differences disappear.

The primary argument against comparative blind testing
(particularly ABX blind testing) is that it violates
normal human musical listening and signal processing so
that it itself is an intervening variable....which is an
absolute "no..no" in test design.

There is in fact no such constraint in test design. Bias controls are
generally accepted in a wide variety of scientific pursuits.

This is further
heightened by the fact that many attributes audiophiles
hold dear, e.g. depth of image, instrumental "air", etc.
are to some degree artifacts concocted by the brain to
create the illusion of real music played in real space.

This would be a straw man argument. Those attributes audiophiles
hold dear, e.g. depth of image, instrumental "air", etc.
are indeed to some degree artifacts concocted by the brain to
create the illusion of real music played in real space, but they are
reliably detected bias controls or not.

The testing seems particularly to destroy the ability to
perceive this, according to many. Advocates call it
"imagination". Opponents call it "intervention".
Unfortunately this aspect of ear/brain processing has not
been pinned down, leaving the field wide-open to
speculation.

Considerable imagination is indeed visible in Harry's post. Just about all
of his purported factual statements are either just plain wrong, or
distortions of the true facts.

Another facit of the argument involves "preference"
versus "identity". Many folks who are anti-ABX testing
are not against blind testing per se (in the sense of
blind A-B preference testing) but oppose ABX testing
because it is a different kind of test...one that
requires identification of differences, a cognitive
function versus preference, which is a holistic function
involving the emotions as well.. There has never been
controlled, scientific research done that correlates the
information provided with the blind ABX testing with
other forms of testing (both blind and non-blind) in
determining whether differences that should be audible in
audio euipment are more or less readily perceived.

In fact bias controls don't negatively impact so-called holistis perceptions
involving the emotions. You can detect audible differences by whatever means
you wish, as long as they don't involve knowing which piece of equipment you
are listening by no-audible means during the test.

Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break
down into stubborn religiosity:

Harry's post above, being a fine example of stubborn religiosity. In his
system of ethics the end justifies the means. Making up seemingly-factual
statements about blind tests that are infact false claims is something that
Harry does early and often with religious fervor.

* the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research
tool for audiometric research, it automatically becomes
"the truth" and can be used in anything audio...including
the evaluation of equipment designed to produce lifelike
replication of music in the home, by untrained listener,
and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are
listening for).

Typical of Harry's outdated understanding of audio tests with bias controls.
There are a number of generally-accepted blind test paradigms such as ABC/hr
in addtion to ABX. However Harry twists just about every discussion of bias
controls into a continuation of his vendetta against ABX.

* the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes
with the variable under test, ie how a person
hears/perceives/responds to music, and the normal rise to
consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an
incorrect instrument for equipment evaluation purposes.

This would be an example of "Any port, no matter how fraught with logical
failures", in the storm of criticism that attends sighted evaluations.

Various means of attempting to research the issue have
been rejected by one side or the other, and thus it
remains a matter of religion.

This is true of Harry, but not most of his opponents. Note that Harry is
overcome with jealousy of certain proponents of bias-controlled testing
because they get public attention that he does not get because even sighted
test proponents see Harry as being way too extreme and vehement to be
credible.

You might research the archives of RAHE for a long
history of these issues.

Yes, there are many examples in the Google archives of RAHE regulars
debunking Harry's childish claims and simple-minded arguments.

Other forums contain substantial
discussion as well, but oftern with more noise/content
ratio.

Oftern!

"Arny Krueger" observed:


Oftern!


Holistis!

Definately!

Knowlege!

Rediculing!

Origionating!

Its!

It's!



Hypocracy!

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

Harry Lavo wrote:
"j." wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"j." wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert

You're right - you're no expert.

Get lost.

Right, as I said I am no expert. I also said I'm sure this argument
must have come up before, but I was unable to locate the thread.

So obviously, there is a common counter augment to this - I'm just
trying to find out what it is.

If there is already a consensus on this, I'm just trying to determine
what it is.



This argument has been going on in audio newsgroups for at least fifteen
years.

There is a consensus that the tool can be useful for audiometric and
development work....so long as the effct being examined is identified and
users trained to hear it, and with the recognition that probably 50% of the
people will be hopeless and have to be thrown out of the test after the
training stage.

There is a consensus that most people can hear differences in audio level
when measuring with broadband white noise.

Beyond that there is no consensus.


Only if you are referring strictly to idiot audiophiles. Those doing
the real reserch on matters audio, recognize the value of DBT's and
other forms of blind testing.

The naysayers are not in that group.

You should stop making things up.


Blind testing by itself does prevent a listener bias based on the knowledge
of which equipment is being testing.

One of the more accurate things you've ever said on the subject.


And this can influence results (a
sub-argument is always the difference between "can" and "does").

Whic is resolved by making sure and simply removing the possibility.

To this
degree it is scientific and pretty much beyond reproach. Advocates claim
that if an affect that is perceived when equipment is identified disapperars
under blind conditions, it is "proof" that the differences were imaginary.



Do they? Where? What they usually say, is that it would likely
require more testing to confirm. The probability is going to be that
you did not hear a real difference sighted.


The primary argument against comparative blind testing (particularly ABX
blind testing) is that it violates normal human musical listening and signal
processing so that it itself is an intervening variable....which is an
absolute "no..no" in test design.

Which of course is true of any sort of comparisons.
ABX can be done in the comfort of one's own home, with one's own
system, so in that sense it is no different than many sighted
comparisons.


This is further heightened by the fact
that many attributes audiophiles hold dear, e.g. depth of image,
instrumental "air", etc. are to some degree artifacts concocted by the brain
to create the illusion of real music played in real space. The testing
seems particularly to destroy the ability to perceive this, according to
many. Advocates call it "imagination". Opponents call it "intervention".
Unfortunately this aspect of ear/brain processing has not been pinned down,
leaving the field wide-open to speculation.

How do you destroy something that isn't really there? Nothing will
stop you from concocting it after the comparisons are finished.

Another facit of the argument involves "preference" versus "identity". Many
folks who are anti-ABX testing are not against blind testing per se (in the
sense of blind A-B preference testing) but oppose ABX testing because it is
a different kind of test...one that requires identification of differences,
a cognitive function versus preference, which is a holistic function
involving the emotions as well..

Mumbo jumbo, gooey gumbo. Horse**** rationizations.

There has never been controlled, scientific
research done that correlates the information provided with the blind ABX
testing with other forms of testing (both blind and non-blind) in
determining whether differences that should be audible in audio euipment are
more or less readily perceived.


Do you hear the sound of something whoosshing over your head?

Accordingly, without definitive research the camps break down into stubborn
religiosity:

* the ABX camp holds that since ABX is a proven research tool for
audiometric research, it automatically becomes "the truth" and can be used
in anything audio...including the evaluation of equipment designed to
produce lifelike replication of music in the home, by untrained listener,
and open-ended evaluation (e.g. not knowing what they are listening for).


They don' hold that, it is simply a fact, like 2+2=4.

* the anti-ABX camp holds that the test itself interferes with the variable
under test, ie how a person hears/perceives/responds to music, and the
normal rise to consciousness of musical artifacts, and thus is an incorrect
instrument for equipment evaluation purposes.

Various means of attempting to research the issue have been rejected by one
side or the other, and thus it remains a matter of religion.

You might research the archives of RAHE for a long history of these issues.
Other forums contain substantial discussion as well, but oftern with more
noise/content ratio.

Or you could just realize that to be anti-ABX is to be truly blind to
the facts.

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" observed:


Oftern!


Holistis!

Definately!

Knowlege!

Rediculing!

Origionating!

Its!

It's!



Hypocracy!

And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is, petty.

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

A true statement, why do you mock it?

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!

Mr. Burrows,

Sorry you're now being targeted by my mentally ill son, Robert. He's been
attacking and intimidating people using his computer since he was kicked out
of Drexel University, and lost his lawsuit against them. Robert is my
bitter, unemployed, 53 year old son who, thanks to the good people on this
chat board has finally left my home, at least temporarily. Due to all the
information on the neighborhood bulletin boards, exposing his life as an
internet stalker and mentally ill person, he's left Pennsylvania for Texas
where he doesn't think his bad reputation will follow. I was worried about
my reputation in the area, however have discovered how kind people have been
who have had run-ins with my son over the many years we've lived here.

Here's some further information about your stalker, so that you can defend
yourself from his coming vicious attacks.

Sylvan Morein, DDS


Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's use
of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's minister
Joseph Goebbels.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..




Various means of attempting to research the issue have
been rejected by one side or the other, and thus it
remains a matter of religion.

This is true of Harry, but not most of his opponents. Note that Harry is
overcome with jealousy of certain proponents of bias-controlled testing
because they get public attention that he does not get because even
sighted test proponents see Harry as being way too extreme and vehement to
be credible.


Believe me, nobody, nobody, is jealous of
the kind of attention that you get.

The rest of us aren't psychotic, masochistic meglamaniacs.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

wrote in message
oups.com...

Or you could just realize that to be anti-ABX is to be truly blind to
the facts.


No, we are well aware of the fact, the fact that you have never set up,
run, nor even participated in any such test, yourself.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

wrote in message
oups.com...

Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" observed:


Oftern!


Holistis!

Definately!

Knowlege!

Rediculing!

Origionating!

Its!

It's!



Hypocracy!

worsd
--


Is that the btes you can do?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's
use of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's
minister Joseph Goebbels.





--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's
use of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's
minister Joseph Goebbels.



You mean, Hitler really didn't live in Pennsylvania?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDem

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's
use of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's
minister Joseph Goebbels.



You mean, Hitler really didn't live in Pennsylvania?
Interesting that you ask. Hitler actually spent a year in Liverpool,
England, where he apparently acquired an admiring attitude toward the
English, and decided to designate them Aryans.

On 6/25/06 11:36, in article ,
"soundhaspriority" wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .

"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's
use of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's
minister Joseph Goebbels.



You mean, Hitler really didn't live in Pennsylvania?
Interesting that you ask. Hitler actually spent a year in Liverpool,
England, where he apparently acquired an admiring attitude toward the
English, and decided to designate them Aryans.

Sorry guys, forgery.

On 6/24/06 19:21, in article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:
"soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Sylvan Morein, DDS" wrote in message
...

"j." wrote:
were you refering to my posts being a forgery by him, or did I
misinterpret that? I don't actually know who that is, and I suppose
that there's no way for me to convince you that I'm not him ...but I'm
not, I'm me!


The above is one of McCarty's forgings. They all follow the same general
lines.

The remark "he's left Pennsylvania for Texas" is an example of McCarty's
use of the "big lie", a propaganda technique originated by Hitler's
minister Joseph Goebbels.



You mean, Hitler really didn't live in Pennsylvania?

Sorry guys, forgery.

Luv,
Bob

On 24 Jun 2006 16:09:30 -0700, "
wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
"Arny Krueger" observed:


Oftern!


Holistis!

Definately!

Knowlege!

Rediculing!

Origionating!

Its!

It's!



Hypocracy!

And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is, petty.

Is this a joke?

paul packer said:

Hypocracy!

And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is, petty.

Is this a joke?

Actually, that was one of Mickey's more cogent posts. You, as a christian,
should summon all of your unspent charity and smile beatifically on poor
Mikey.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

j. wrote:
I've looked around a bit for this, and it seems it must have been
mentioned before - but I think there's a pretty compelling argument as
to why double blind tests aren't always the be all end all. (yeah,
this could get bad - I'm no expert, this is just a thought so be easy
on me)

Using DBTs we can determine what the smallest difference a human is
able to detect is. For example, slight changes in pitch or volume.
There is a level that is small enough that the person is unable to
detect the difference, but at twice the change the person can tell the
difference.

So lets say that no one is able to reliably tell the difference between
speaker cable A and speaker cable B in a DBT. Lets also say that no
one is able to tell the difference between amp A and amp B in a DBT.

...but what if enough of these things added together does produce a
perceptible difference? (Obviously this doesn't really blow away the
DBT argument - its more that it shows that the way we do the tests is
not adequate). I mean, I doubt they are out there doing double blind
tests with hundreds of permutations of high end audio gear all the time
- the cost would be amazing.

I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of
a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that
(also because of cost). ...but that's another argument and I'm sure
I'm going to catch enough flak for this one already

Dear Mr. Jason B.
You're voicing one of the many reasons why a listening 'test" for
comparing audio components does not exist.
In science , any science, even B.Sc. engineering, it is an axiom that
an aspiring "test' has to be validated by experimental evidence. If
you claim that your test shows up "subtle" differences, not othewise
obvious to everyone, then you'd better set out to show that it does so.

Not ONE SINGLE paper with a positive outcome, ("Yes, there were
differences") using the blind method appeared in the peer reviewed
professional journal such as JAES.
Blind tests are an indispensable weapon in many areas, where one deals
with facts: is it louder or less loud, does this pill control diabetes
or not?
There are as many answers to the question: " Does this amp sound
different from this one?" as there are listeners: of different age,
gender, musical experience and preferences. Most people buy the
cheapest because they DO NOT hear differences,
All this does not mean that you should not prefer to choose blinded as
a precaution against bias. But your choice is your choice, good for
you. It aint a "test." A test is peer- repeatable by definition.
And if someone tells you that your preference must be tested by his
"test" refer him to an elementary text about the methods of scientific
enquiry.
Lusovic MIrabel

Hey Mike!

Long time no see, where have you been?
Raising money to feed Ann Coulter, hm? ;-)

" said:


Sander deWaal wrote:

"Arny Krueger" observed:


Oftern!


Holistis!

Definately!

Knowlege!

Rediculing!

Origionating!

Its!

It's!



Hypocracy!


And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is, petty.


That's a matter of perception, I think.
What I find petty is the endless political posts and - discussions in
an audio newsgroup.
But hey, to each his own, I guess.


"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".


A true statement, why do you mock it?


What makes you think I mock it?

--
"All amps sound alike, but some sound more alike than others".

"j." wrote in message
ps.com...

I would also think that it takes some time to get used to the sound of
a system anyway, and I doubt DBTs are long enough to allow for that
(also because of cost). ...but that's another argument and I'm sure
I'm going to catch enough flak for this one already

It's not "another" argument, it's THE argument, just that no one gets it.
DBT *is* the way to go, just not the way most people think of doing it. You
*should* be able to live with your equipment and listen to music over a long
period of time in the privacy of your own home, and at the same time it
should be one long DBT. Such a thing isn't impossible, just exremely
inconvenient. But it can easily be approximated with willing participants.
It really doesn't have to be double blind, only single blind, with
participants who are really willing to get at the truth. It would be
extremely easy to hide a couple amplifiers away somewhere you can't see
them, and have a partner switch (or not switch) them over the course of a
couple months. You could do the same with a CD player, but you'd need a
very active partner (like a slave or butler). With speakers, it would be
much more problematic.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

This so-called consensus is a fabrication of Harry Lavo's fevered mind.

You are a complete tool.

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 23:51:41 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Hypocracy!

And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is, petty.

Is this a joke?

Actually, that was one of Mickey's more cogent posts. You, as a christian,
should summon all of your unspent charity and smile beatifically on poor
Mikey.


What makes you think I have any unspent charity. I spend it as soon as
I get it.

In fact I'm currently overdrawn. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com
Sander deWaal wrote:

a spelling lesson

And the worsd that best describes this post ofyours is,
petty.

It's the best that disciples of Middius can muster. The pre-requisite
lobotomy ensures that.