[Jenn]

Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Thnak's Jen for, admoittnig Jnen that you're as gullabelle as a
newly-born "Golden Ears" Jeen.

[George M. Middius]

Witless has a cow.

Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

Goddamit, Jenn, no audio posts are allowed on RAO. Didn't you know they
give Terrierdork grief and offense? Please clean up your act so Scottie
can continue to shine his beacon of purity throughout Usenet.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

[Bill Riel]

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-079C75.12391519092007
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
says...
In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

Yeah, but did he talk about how evil Muslims are? Or how liberals are
destroying America? You're waaay off topic otherwise Jenn.

--
Bill

[vlad]

On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

[Jenn]

In article ,
Bill Riel wrote:

In article jennconductsREMOVETHIS-079C75.12391519092007
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net,
says...
In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

Yeah, but did he talk about how evil Muslims are? Or how liberals are
destroying America? You're waaay off topic otherwise Jenn.

--
Bill

Opps, sorry.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
vlad wrote:

On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Feel free to grab a copy [of Stereophile] and read it.

But Jenn, that would mean spending money. You know perfectly well that
Vladborg is as broke as a '68 Plymouth sitting on blocks.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" wrote in message
ups.com
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with me in public
that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

"...as I have found it much easier to make predictions about the past than
about the future, I decided to offer some possible explanations for the
commercial failure of the existing hi-rez audio media..."

Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of his observations. ;-)

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with me in public
that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's talking about
the current magazine, the contents of which are not on line yet.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article ,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts
that contain no factual content.

(2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the information posted above?

[dizzy]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of his observations. ;-)

LOL You have all the market data, eh Arns?

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article ,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts
that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts. I didn't find
anything confusing about her post.

(2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the information posted above?

Jenn's post has nothing at all to do with your "information" as a matter
of fact.

I'm sure that John can speak for himself, but I suspect he did not
credit you primarily because you had nothing to do with his
observations.

--
Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of
which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

I didn't find anything confusing about her post.

Can't prove it since you made no public determination as to which AISI she
meant until she clarified it slightly.

(2) How does Jenn's sloppiness detract from the
information posted above?

Jenn's post has nothing at all to do with your
"information" as a matter of fact.

I'm sure that John can speak for himself, but I suspect
he did not credit you primarily because you had nothing
to do with his observations.

In fact John has personally responded to my criticisms of high resolution
audio formats in the past, so he is obviously aware of my public involvment
with the opposing viewpoint, some of which he has finally embraced.

Of course, it is well known that John would rather commit public Hari-Kari
than admit that I affected the way he thinks in any significant way. ;-)

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article ,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of which
are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from making sloppy posts

lol I don't know, I thought it was quite clear and succinct. "As We
See It", "new issue". Seems quite clear.

that contain no factual content.

Rec.Audio, OPINION, Arny.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article ,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of
which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to. She's
talking about the current magazine, the contents of
which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
making sloppy posts

lol I don't know, I thought it was quite clear and
succinct. "As We See It", "new issue". Seems quite
clear.

"new issue" depends on how its distributed to you, Jenn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article
,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
She's talking about the current magazine, the
contents of which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

Never bought it on thenewstand, I take it.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article
,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
She's talking about the current magazine, the
contents of which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results from
making sloppy posts that contain no factual content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

Never bought it on thenewstand

"Sloppy"

, I take it.

The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand for some time.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

ScottW

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one group of listeners
high-rez digital audio can sound better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and
192kbps.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the test set up or
analysis.

But many will be impressed by the quality of writing, and overlook the rest.
;-)

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the test set up or
analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing, and overlook the rest.
;-)

Whatever.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article
,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
She's talking about the current magazine, the
contents of which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results
from making sloppy posts that contain no factual
content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

Never bought it on thenewstand

"Sloppy"

, I take it.

The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand
for some time.

But there's nothing newer on the SP web site, today.

Boy Jenn, you really are defensive about your comment's absence of reliable
date reference!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
writing.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Bill Riel" wrote in message

In article
,
says...
"Bill Riel" wrote in message
t
In article
,
says...

John achieved a measure of excellence by finally
agreeing with me in public that the existing hi-rez
audio formats are commercial failures:

http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

That's not the article that Jenn is referring to.
She's talking about the current magazine, the
contents of which are not on line yet.

(1) Just shows the kind of confusion that results
from making sloppy posts that contain no factual
content.

Sigh...

Jenn stated a simple opinion which required no facts.

Sure it did - which "AISI" article she meant.

The "new issue", Arny.

Never bought it on thenewstand

"Sloppy"

, I take it.

The September issue hasn't been new even on the newsstand
for some time.

But there's nothing newer on the SP web site, today.

So wait until it becomes available to you, then read it.


Boy Jenn, you really are defensive about your comment's absence of reliable
date reference!

Really? What's "defensive" about the above?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in the
test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the quality of the
writing.

Good writing is good to find.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.


But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

So read the piece when it becomes available to you and see if it is lies
or not.

[vlad]

On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,



vlad wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

vova

[Jenn]

In article .com,
vlad wrote:

On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,



vlad wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

vova

October.

Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?

The Hive has no instruments for measuring opinions, so the 'borgs aren't
convinced opinions actually exist.

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 19:07, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in




In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
.com,
ScottW wrote:

On Sep 19, 12:39 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your
preferred pesonal comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files.

and what was excellent?

It is well written, and it shows how to at least one
group of listeners high-rez digital audio can sound
better than redbook and MP3 at 320 and 192kbps.

Based on past experience, there's probably a clam in
the test set up or analysis.

Well, you can always read it and find out, I suppose.

But many will be impressed by the quality of writing,
and overlook the rest. ;-)

Whatever.

That's a lot of Stereophile's attraction to many - the
quality of the writing.

Good writing is good to find.

Well-written lies are pretty easy to find.

for poorly written lies, Google Kruger

[Clyde Slick]

On 20 Sep, 19:54, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:


The Hive has no instruments for measuring opinions, so the 'borgs aren't
convinced opinions actually exist.


you could say the same thing for 'good sounding music'

[vlad]

On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,



vlad wrote:
On Sep 19, 1:10 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

vlad wrote:
On Sep 19, 11:39 am, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Sep 18, 5:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

What was so "excellent".....or is usenet now your preferred pesonal
comm path?

ScottW

It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.

I have read this article carefully and found nothing about "
"unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files.". Can you give direct quote with your
comment, Jennifer?

vova

It seems that it's not online yet. Feel free to grab a copy and read
it. I don't have time to type long quotes right now.

So is it September or October issue that you referring to? September
issue is online and I found nothing in it relating to your "opinion".

vova

October.

Just curious: why did you place the word "opinion" in quotation marks?


You said:

" It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the audibility of
differences in digital files."

It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion or a fact.
Judging by your refusal to comment on it I take it as another
unfounded opinion of high-ender.

Am I right about it?

Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that whatever cover
price is, in my view, it is a vaste of money. Magazine that keeps
Michael Fremer on a payroll is not worth of serious attention. When
this article will be available online I will read it and then we can
continue discussion.

vova

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(

The October sisue "As We See it" will be posted in our
free on-line archives on October 15.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com
On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn
wrote:
In article
.com,


You said:

" It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files."

It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion
or a fact. Judging by your refusal to comment on it I
take it as another unfounded opinion of high-ender.

Am I right about it?

Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that
whatever cover price is, in my view, it is a vaste of
money. Magazine that keeps Michael Fremer on a payroll is
not worth of serious attention. When this article will be
available online I will read it and then we can continue
discussion.

We'be been through a number of these unintentional blind test games before.
The odds of there being a proper unintentional blind test about the same as
the odds of someone becoming an unintentional billionaire.

The way the story goes is that it was planned to be just an ordinary sighted
evaluation, but then someone realized that the information they thought they
were seeing was wrong, so now they want to fantasize that the test was a
proper DBT.

Thing is that it takes more than mere blindness to make a proper test
comparing different formats of media - the test must be level-matched and
time-synched as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
On Sep 18, 8:50 pm, Jenn
wrote:
Excellent "As We See It" in the new issue, John.

Thanks Jenn. Sorry for the tardy response, I was on a
trip. But sorry to see that your comments earned you
a piling-on of abuse from Arny Krueger. :-(

Aren't co-dependent relationships such wonderful things - I take Jenn to
task for some vague statement of her, and all of a sudden its inflated into
abuse.

The October sisue "As We See it" will be posted in our
free on-line archives on October 15.

sisue? I don't even know you! ;-)

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 19, 4:56 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
John achieved a measure of excellence by finally agreeing with
me in public that the existing hi-rez audio formats are commercial
failures: http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/907awsi/

I don't see why say "finally," Mr. Krueger, as I have
expressed this sentiment several times in the past.

"...as I have found it much easier to make predictions
about the past than about the future, I decided to offer
some possible explanations for the commercial failure
of the existing hi-rez audio media..."

Unfortunately, John did not credit me as the source of
his observations. ;-)

That is indeed correct, Mr. Krueger, because you
were _not_ the source of my observations. I give a
number of links in the essay to earlier essays I
wrote on the same subject. My summary was
based on my earlier observations.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com
On Sep 20, 9:39 am, Jenn
wrote:
In article
.com,


You said:

" It's about an "unintentional" blind test and the
audibility of differences in digital files."

It was not clear to me if this was a statement of opinion
or a fact. Judging by your refusal to comment on it I
take it as another unfounded opinion of high-ender.

Am I right about it?

Stereophile publishes so much technical gibberish that
whatever cover price is, in my view, it is a vaste of
money. Magazine that keeps Michael Fremer on a payroll is
not worth of serious attention. When this article will be
available online I will read it and then we can continue
discussion.

We'be been through a number of these unintentional blind test games before.
The odds of there being a proper unintentional blind test about the same as
the odds of someone becoming an unintentional billionaire.

The way the story goes is that it was planned to be just an ordinary sighted
evaluation, but then someone realized that the information they thought they
were seeing was wrong, so now they want to fantasize that the test was a
proper DBT.

Thing is that it takes more than mere blindness to make a proper test
comparing different formats of media - the test must be level-matched and
time-synched as well.

Once you read it, you can write from an informed POV.