[[email protected]]

In the "AyreC 5xe..."thread on the 23rd I said:

With all due respect- time to stop wondering. ALL the
listening comparisons between one and all audio
components using ABX, that were published anywhere
resulted in a "The panel hears no difference" vote..

Krueger responded:
Nonsense.

No one; but no one; reported a decent-sized,
representative panel ABXing ANY comparable audio
components with a positive outcome like:: "Yes most of
us heard the difference"

Nonsense.
I commented:
Strong words!

Not by RAO standards.

RAO standards can not be invoked as an excuse for responding with an
insult when one can not deal with facts.
So I said:
Let me instruct you Gulliver for the 20th time what makes
a reference. I pick up at random a copy of an article by
Olive and Toole.in the JAES.
At the end there is a column titled " References". There
are 24 of them there .
Every single one goes like this: Author(s) name(s),
Title, Journal where published, Volume, Number, Page(s)
Now let's like at Krueger's idea of a reference-his text follows:
If you read more serious audio forums like Hydrogen audio, you would find numerous reports of hearing differences in ABX and ABC/hr tests.
Sound and Vision
has also reported audible differences in ABX tests.

I answered:
If you submitted to the Editor of JAES an article
instructing the reader to browse through web pages of a
web forum- no year, no month, no title- you would by
shown the door not only for ignorance but for insolence
as well.

Krueger:
Guess what Mirabel - RAO is not comparable to the JAES.

Indeed.
Glad to see you acknowledge at last that the whole topic of ABX for
audio component comparison is fit only for RAO and its like only. Not
for a serious publication in a serious professional Journal, where you
never managed to pass the editor's pencil..

Can we assume that from now on you'll rephrase:your "challenges": "But
you did not prove it by the objective, scientific RAO's own level-
matched, time-synched ABX method you subjectivist dog you?"

Will you hold a synod of your followers to formalise and approve the
new wording?

By the way . Have you given up on the Oakland website?.

The ABX website got moved to the current location due to the preferences of
its owner, David Carlstrom.

Arny, clever Arny- fooling people again? You know very well that I was
not referrring to its address but to your quoting it as evidence that
ABX is useful for differentiating between audio components.
A primitive dodge- dated 1977 by the way- to respond to my demolition
of your only "evidence" of ABX usefulness to an audio consumer.

I commented:
No spirited defence? Just a strategic retreat to the
anonymous postings , somewhere, sometime in Hydrogen
Audio. Have you got a third line of defence ready to fall
back on?

Krueger cleverly censors out my factual demolition of his "evidence"
and declaims thusly::

" End of discussioo on the grounds of Mirabel's dismissive attitude."

.. For the first time in decades our Arny shuts up AND acknowledges it.

This warrants the start of a new topic!
I love his offended virtue claim. This from a man whose favourite
argument in a polemic with Jenn is: "You're hysterical"

Arny, you sound desperste. If this is a strategic retreat to the
undergrowth intending to emerge when all this is forgotten rest assured
that my postings will be resurrected- with additions as necessary.
Ludovic Mirabel