[[email protected]]

Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

I strayed today into the RAHE thicket and took a dive back into the
audio forums' antiquities- several threads devoted to the venerable
chapel- the ABX component listening "test" that lingers on in the RAHE
retirement lodge and nowhere else. With you all alone trying to talk
sense to the faithful.

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the editors of thre
Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which validated this way of comparing
audio components. The patient web is another matter.** Anything goes
there.

There is a good guidepost in medicine: if a proposed new remedy or
lab test is still controversial seven years later then it was not
worth much to begin with. Compare! Even the pop audio mags never
printed a panel comparison of components using ABX after 1960s. RAHE
is the last refuge for the primitive fantasists who think that complex
responses to the reproduction of complex music by millions of
different lesteners can be "tested". It is dead as mutton anywhere
else.
Sell it to the pianists, violinists and flutists choosing their
instruments.
Ludovic Mirabel

** Before the old forger Krueger has a chance to relapse: an article
about a subject means an article devoted to that topic , with the
title that quotes it and conclusions that summarise it. Not a brief
mention in the text and a promise of more that never comes (see
Clark's article that he quoted when challenged before)

[dizzy]

wrote:

Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to do, when you're clearly in the wrong.

[JBorg, Jr.]

dizzy wrote
elmir2m wrote:




Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to do, when you're clearly in the wrong.




You talk the talk man. Why don't you ask your believers
to discuss that embarrassing topic here instead.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 2, 7:36 pm, dizzy wrote:
wrote:
Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to do, when you're clearly in the wrong.

========

Last time I heard an argument of this kind was in my kindergarten
days.
"You are wrong"
"No, YOU are wrong"
" But YOU are CLEARLY wrong. That's much worse"
L.M.

[dizzy]

wrote:

On Apr 2, 7:36 pm, dizzy wrote:
wrote:
Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to do, when you're clearly in the wrong.

========

Last time I heard an argument of this kind was in my kindergarten
days.
"You are wrong"
"No, YOU are wrong"
" But YOU are CLEARLY wrong. That's much worse"

Maybe you should learn how to read. You brought up the RAHE debate.
You know where it is. Read it. There's no need for me to add to what
has already been written.

[George M. Middius]

dippy Kroopologized:

Maybe you should learn how to read.

You sound more and more like Joe Doofy, and a bit less like Thing.

You brought up the RAHE debate.

Getting back to reality, dipster, let's go back to the facts. You have
zero experience with any DBTs for consumer audio gear. That means nil,
nada, zippo. You're arguing out of your ass, which may make the Krooborg
proud, but in human terms, you're a puff of fart-wind.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr.]

Arny's minion said:
elmi... wrote:



========

Last time I heard an argument of this kind was in my kindergarten
days.

"You are wrong"
"No, YOU are wrong"
" But YOU are CLEARLY wrong. That's much worse"



Maybe you should learn how to read. You brought up the RAHE debate.
You know where it is. Read it. There's no need for me to add to what
has already been written.


No, you are clearly, CLEARLY a dashingly prickly pronged and piercingly
well define NUMBNUT.


Tung-tie, tung-tie Arnie!


Tung-tie, tung tie!

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 5:06 pm, dizzy wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 2, 7:36 pm, dizzy wrote:
wrote:
Why do you bother? Did you ever hear of anyone swaying the true
believers?

Yeah, it's pretty hard to do, when you're clearly in the wrong.

========

Last time I heard an argument of this kind was in my kindergarten
days.
"You are wrong"
"No, YOU are wrong"
" But YOU are CLEARLY wrong. That's much worse"

Maybe you should learn how to read. You brought up the RAHE debate.
You know where it is. Read it. There's no need for me to add to what
has already been written.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Mr. Dizzy,
You've taken trouble to confirm my point.The brrighter kindergarten
kids can already read but they are not reading advanced thinkers and
electronic luminaries like Krueger, Sullivan, NYOB and undoubtedly
you. When they do grow up to the elementary school level they no
longer waste time on a battered, beaten to death boring topic- not for
four decades ,they do not.

Before this rererere"debate" gets into its usual endless spin a few
simple definitions. Both for you and Mr. Krueger

What an "article" is not?. It is not a ONE SENTENCE mention of future
accompilishments.
What it is. It is the titled, signed account of the experiments
performed using the defined test protocol (ABX in this case) that
demonstrate4 that it is a superior tool for distinguishing and
appraising the musical performance of audio components.

What is a scientifically significant article.? It is an article
accepted for publication by a journal authoritative in this field.

What is of no interest to a nonprofessional audiophile group". The
news that that protocol is useful for assesing codecs, phase
differences and such

What is of interest to such a group?. The news that there is a test
superior to their concentrated listening and to the judgement of the
(few)critics that they learnt to trust

What no one sane would object to? Listening blind.if it helps anyone
to concentrate. Many concert goers do..

What do sane people object to.? Being bothered with a supposed "test"
that always end up with "it all sounds the same" verdict.

What else? Seeing Chairman Krueger for the nth. splitting verbal hairs
instead of talking to the subject..
Ludovic Mirabel

[dizzy]

wrote:

Dear Mr. Dizzy,
You've taken trouble to confirm my point.
(snip)

I'm not sure what your point is, after trying to decipher that load of
impenetrable gobbledegook...

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com

What an "article" is not?. It is not a ONE SENTENCE
mention of future accompilishments.

You mean, like your proposed alternative to ABX?

What it is. It is the titled, signed account of the
experiments performed using the defined test protocol
(ABX in this case) that demonstrate4 that it is a
superior tool for distinguishing and appraising the
musical performance of audio components.

Name an article about any test protocol that meets shis standard.

What is a scientifically significant article.? It is an
article accepted for publication by a journal
authoritative in this field.

You mean like the JAES or one of the IEEE family?

What is of no interest to a nonprofessional audiophile
group".

Not a proper sentence. We're supposed to be led into a new era of subjective
testing someone who can't even write proper sensible English sentences?

The news that that protocol is useful for
assesing codecs, phase differences and such.

A sentence, but so awkward as to be opaque. Note for example that up until
now the purpose of tests of interest would be "appraising the musical
performance of audio components". Now Mirabel's mind snaps, and the purpose
of tests of interest has changed to "assesing codecs, phase differences and
such".

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the
editors of thre Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which
validated this way of comparing audio components. The
patient web is another matter.** Anything goes there.

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind
Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May
1982, pp. 330-338.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the
editors of thre Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which
validated this way of comparing audio components. The
patient web is another matter.** Anything goes there.

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind
Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May
1982, pp. 330-338.

Exactly as I predicted. Krueger is up again with Clark's article about
ABXing. .
You can't keep an old liar down.He behaves true to form.
The article is about all the possible technical uses of ABX.
There is not ONE SINGLE WORD about comparing the audio components'
music reproduction abilities by listening tests, protocols used,
examples and results.
You see it Krueger? Quote it..
You can't? You tell me what to call a liar who brazenly keeps
repeating his lies.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
oups.com
On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the
editors of thre Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which
validated this way of comparing audio components. The
patient web is another matter.** Anything goes there.

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing
Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp.
330-338.

Exactly as I predicted. Krueger is up again with Clark's
article about ABXing.

Letsee

(1) It is a JAES article
(2) Publishing this article is the JAES's way of validating the methodology
for its members


The article is about all the possible technical uses of
ABX.

Including comparing audio components.

There is not ONE SINGLE WORD about comparing the audio
components' music reproduction abilities by listening tests,

The article mentions comparing audio components as a possible use for ABX.

protocols used,


The article describes the ABX test protocol, which is the protocol used.

examples and results.

The article describes examples of the use of ABX.

You see it Krueger? Quote it..

Not my job to repeat what I've done in the past for the sake of those who
are intentionally blind to it.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 11:38 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com





On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the
editors of thre Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which
validated this way of comparing audio components. The
patient web is another matter.** Anything goes there.

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing
Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp.
330-338.
Exactly as I predicted. Krueger is up again with Clark's
article about ABXing.

Letsee

(1) It is a JAES article
(2) Publishing this article is the JAES's way of validating the methodology
for its members

The article is about all the possible technical uses of
ABX.

Including comparing audio components.

There is not ONE SINGLE WORD about comparing the audio
components' music reproduction abilities by listening tests,

The article mentions comparing audio components as a possible use for ABX.

protocols used,

The article describes the ABX test protocol, which is the protocol used.

examples and results.

The article describes examples of the use of ABX.

You see it Krueger? Quote it..

Not my job to repeat what I've done in the past for the sake of those who
are intentionally blind to it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
--------------------------------------------

The weaseling liar "answers":
I said:
There is not ONE SINGLE WORD about comparing the audio
components' music reproduction abilities by listening tests,

The article mentions comparing audio components as a possible use for ABX.

And that "mention" of a "possible use" in an 1982 article is all the
"validation" that the grand priest of the ABX chapel can quote.
Apparentlr Krueger never got the news about Roger Bacon centuries old
defining of experimental ,method in science.
Ludovic Mirabel
..

[JBorg, Jr.]

elmir2m wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
elmi... wrote



The weaseling liar "answers":

I said:

There is not ONE SINGLE WORD about comparing the audio
components' music reproduction abilities by listening tests,

The article mentions comparing audio components as a possible use for ABX.


And that "mention" of a "possible use" in an 1982 article is all the
"validation" that the grand priest of the ABX chapel can quote.


LoL ! Arny !

A right hook, followed by torrent of searing body shot to arny's kidney beans.
by adding insult to injury as Shhh said to Arny ...


"... publication in a refereed journal simply means that it
seems to have met the conditions to throw it to others to see if the
procedure is repeatable or valid. It is not "validating the
methodology" in any way."


LoL !


Where are the other Grand High Priest of ABX when Arny needed
them most ......??

.......... They're hiding under the polka dress of Bath guy at

Rec.Audio. "Low-End" ......... hahahhahaha!



Tung- tie, tung-tie Arnie! Tung-tie, tung tie !



LoL!


Apparentlr Krueger never got the news about Roger Bacon centuries
old defining of experimental ,method in science.
Ludovic Mirabel


Arny's love affair with abx refuses to quell.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 3, 1:38 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

roups.com

When did anyone ever see an article accepted by the
editors of thre Journ. of the Audio Eng. Socy. which
validated this way of comparing audio components. The
patient web is another matter.** Anything goes there.

Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing
Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio
Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp.
330-338.
Exactly as I predicted. Krueger is up again with Clark's
article about ABXing.

Letsee

(1) It is a JAES article
(2) Publishing this article is the JAES's way of validating the methodology
for its members

Letsee.

That would be very unusual, Arns.

Typically, publication in a refereed journal simply means that it
seems to have met the conditions to throw it to others to see if the
procedure is repeatable or valid. It is not "validating the
methodology" in any way.

Remember this? Did the journal "Science" validate this for their
members?

"He made news around the world when he announced in August that his
team had created the world's first cloned dog.

The veracity of that research, as well as an earlier paper on the
first cloning of a human embryo, will now be subject to review by the
same panel, says the BBC's Charles Scanlon in Seoul.

SCANDAL TIMELINE
Feb 2004 Hwang Woo-suk's team declare they have created 30 cloned
human embryos
May 2005 Team says it has made stem cell lines from skin cells of 11
people
Nov 2005 Hwang apologises for using eggs from his own researchers
Dec 15 A colleague claims stem cell research was faked
Dec 23 Academic panel finds results were 'intentionally fabricated'


Profile: Hwang Woo-suk

In May, Dr Hwang published a paper in the journal Science, saying his
team had extracted material from cloned human embryos that identically
matched the DNA of 11 patients.

It was claimed such a technique could be the key to providing
personalised cures.

But the university panel said that all 11 sets of data were derived
from only two stem cell lines.

The panel said it still did not know whether those two stem cell
clusters had actually been cloned.

"Based on these findings, data in the 2005 Science journal cannot be
regarded as a simple accidental error but as intentional fabrication
made out of two stem cells," the investigators said.

"This is a serious wrongdoing that has damaged the foundation of
science," it said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4554422.stm

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

You tell me what to call a liar who brazenly keeps
repeating his lies.

"audio 'borg"

It's not so much brazen as reflexive, or even programmatic.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.