[[email protected]]

Krueger in the year 2000 about "AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
INTERCONNECTS"

I said : (in "ABX is it useful?" thread,in RAHE on 14.9.2000)
" There is abundant evidence to show that the audiences
tested under the ABX procedure are unable to hear differences between components such as cables, interconnects, and amplifiers.
A.Krueger answered: (message 2, on 14.9.2000)

"Flase claim, actually two of them. There are published ABX tests that
have found reliable audible differences between cables and amplifiers.
Actually three flase claims because I wrote an article about audible
differences between interconnects that was submited to Audio Magazine
but not accepted."

Krueger was able to hear differences between amplifier and
interconnects once. But things change. The synod decided it was
simpler to say there are none as long as they are electronically
comparable. Arny's hearing changed instantly.
And I think I'll keep to my third "false claim" refuted by Arny in a
never published article.
..
But wait...He will explain it all... Anonymous: Nasties claimed that the
thin and the thick interconnects and big and small amps sound the
same.. All he wanted to prove was that 400 watters were louder than
the 10 watters. A prophet crying in wilderness.!



KRUEGER'S WAY WITH WORDS
Chapter one; How to use the adverb "NOT"
Krueger in "Arny is not listening" thread, Nov.8th
"OK Mirabel, you then must live in an alternative universe where ABX
was not
validated by the JAES review board,"
The JAES review board does not "validate" anything. It just reviews
the articles sent to it for coherence and factuality.
So it neither validated nor invalidated the use of the ABX for
comparing the audio components for quality...
I answered:
"The subject is: ABX AS A LISTENING TEST FOR AUDIO COMPONENT
COMPARISON. Give REFERENCE to the JAES review board validating it for
THIS USE or quote the exact words of this validation"

Krueger picks up his samartie-pants debating aids manual. He finds the
page:"How to confuse the issue"
We had step 1:They did not invalidate. Step 2 So they VALIDATED., no?
:".
.. He abandons "validating" .and turns a few pages in his twist- and-
turn glossary to
Step 3.
Nov.8, same thread:: " AFAIK, no restrictions were placed on the
uses
of ABX in the article that the JAES review board reviewed. "
I commented:
"As far as he knows!! I'll tell him something he seems not
to know. The JAES Review Board does not have a list of "restricted"
topics." It is not a chapel synod.
Finaly he reaches for his ultimatel resources::," Ludo. I'm sorry that
everything I'm saying here is over your head." He also explains that
his rich, tech.school graduate, prose is beyond my ambit. My English
is not adequate for his literary skills. . The RAO, leading musical
and literary light, is a hard act to follow.
ABX- is it a "test" or "analysis" or "methodology" or just a
"listening evaluation"?

Arny in "ABX is it useful?) nov. 2000:
"...overblown
criticisms of ABX by people who either don't have any experience with
ABX TESTS, or have an agenda of making people distrust ABX tests".

Arny again in "Why do the anti ABX folk..." thread in 2003:
"t's no secret that doing ABX TESTS takes some technical skill and
some willingness to put forth a serious effort while listening. I've
reduced these factors to a bare minimum with PCABX but that still
doesn't help some people"

And now listen to ,Arny in the "Vinyl maven" thread on Nov 6, 2006
"Your problem Mirabel is the fact that your demands are
totally unfair. You want ABX to be certified with a specific kind of
peer-reviewed paper, completely ignoring the fact that no other kind
of listening evaluation methodology has similar certification. "
Arny is pressed against the wall to show any, but any, experimental
work that confirms that his ABX "test" helps to distinguish
components. No problem. What was the TEST is transformed first into
"analysis methodology" and then in despair into a "listening
evaluation"

But it was a "test" once. And whenever convenient it will be again:.
But for now we have official confirmation from the horse's mouth (not
an insult-just a figure of speech!): ABX is only a "listening
evaluation". It is an impression just like the impressions of any
listener.

What about all those loud demands that reviewers do the ABX "testing"?
Let all the naïve souls that took it all seriously remember that both
the reviews and the ABXing. are all just "listening evaluations".
Which we "subjectivists" always knew.
And having a choice we preferred listening evaluation by eg. J. Gordon
Holt than by a musical illiterate armed with an ABX switching gadget.

Are the other chapel members listening to the to the high-priest?. His
collaborator Clark, Nousaine, NYOB, Sullivan, Ferstler, Pinkerton ?,
The defenders of "science" where are you?

KRUEGER THE PUBLISHED WRITER AND HIS JAES "WORKS" . HISTORY OF
FORGERY.

Exchanges in the "Arny is not listening' thread.
Arny:says: " That's incorrect. The JAES has published a number of
works that I authored
or co-authored."

He forgets to give the exact title, year, page. For a good
reason. There were none..

John Atkinson #568 Nov. 14
"Arny Krueger wrote:
The JAES has published a number of works that I authored
or co-authored.

Not that can be retrieved using the search engine at www.aes.org,
Mr. Krueger, using all the alternative spellings of your name,
and searching both the index of published papers and the
preprint index. Could you supply the references, please.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Never at a loss Krueger retorts:
# 579 Nov. 14
"The only archive of JAES contents that I have ready access to is the
CD set
of articles and conference papers. It does not contain everything that
was
published in the JAES".
And a day later:
"My writings have definately been published in the JAES,
: No longer articles but "works" or "writings".
I said: "And again no dates, no titles, no pages. An exchange:
Yes I see finally what I found impossible to believe
about you or any normal grown-up...
Yes, JAES never published an article written by you."
AK responds
Wrong. My ARTICLES were technical in nature, but not
regular engineering reports.
I ask::
Which "articles"? Where? In the CIA secret files or can
we all read them? .
He explains:
#597 Nov.16 Krueger
I don't know exactly where they are, and I have explained why. My best
guess
is that they showed up in JAES issues from the 80s.

Krueger lamented that he had no access to JAES archives.
Presumably once he filled the basement with the copies of his "works"
and "writings and "articles" in JAES he burnt them all and the
titlesdid not stick in his head.
Moved by Krueger's ordeal I found a contact for him. He'll now know
where to look to enlighten and refute the dark plotters ranged against
him.
...
From the Toronto University Library:
"Hello,
Your message was forwarded to me.
I searched many databases but only found one article which is close to
what you requested:

Amplifier-loudspeaker interfacing
Krueger, A. B.
Published in "DB, The Sound Engineering Magazine", Vol. 18, No. 7,
Aug. Sept. 1984.
..
Signed: J. Wang
Engineering and Computer Science Library
University of Toronto

I'm tired but there is more of the same if Arny questions this
forger's record
Ludovic Mirabel