Questions to Arny Krueger
Nate Krueger
2. If not, why?
3. You still have a "record", right?
4. Are you still licking Nousiaine's anus every time he farts and loving it?
BOOOOO!
Nate
dave weil
wrote:
Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
MiNe 109
dave weil <dw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2003 04:58:50 -0700, deadnat...@yahoo.com (Nate Krueger)
> wrote:
>
<delete>
> >Nate
>
> Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
Me, too.
Stephen
Robert Morein
"MiNe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:smcatut-866CBE...@newsr3.texas.rr.com...
I am too.
Out of bounds. Beyond the pale. Just plain offensive.
S888Wheel
>From: MiNe 109 smc...@mail.utexas.edu
>Date: 6/5/03 6:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <smcatut-866CBE...@newsr3.texas.rr.com>
It is really disgusting and uncalled for.
Schizoid Man
>
> Me, too.
>
Stephen,
Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard Ferstler
antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on RAO concern the
slandering these two individuals.
Regards.
George M. Middius
Schizoid Man said:
> Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard Ferstler
> antipathy nexus?
Allow me: Krooger is the antithesis of a scientific or even logical
interlocutor. He is clinically insane, most likely with the syndrome
called Paranoid Personality Disorder. He is a compulsive liar, an
angry, cornered beast, and totally immoral pile of shit. His
odiousness surpasses any description that could be rendered in a
paragraph of reasonable length.
Ferstler's problems should be obvious even to you, since he's been
posting up a storm lately. If you simply read a bunch of his posts
(and the replies, of course) from the past few weeks, even an extreme
dimbulb like yourself should catch on.
> It seems that more than half the posts on RAO concern the
> slandering [sic] these two individuals.
You left out a crucial preposition that determines who is slandering
whom. In my opinion, it's simply not possible to slander Krooger
because he is so unspeakably vile. Ferstler is more pathetic and less
noxious, so calling him a pedophile (a factual label for Krooger)
would be slanderous.
MiNe 109
"Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net> wrote:
What is it when Arny implies I'm a Scientologist?
Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
they consider opposing points of view.
Stephen
George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
> they consider opposing points of view.
That's a minimal (and clinical) description of one aspect of their
online behavior. It doesn't come close to illuminating the true
reasons they are so widely despised. Especially Krooger.
dave weil
wrote:
There are soooo many examples of the reason that people have such
problems with Arnold and Howard.
Let me give you a simple and quick example of why Arnold is so hated.
Note the way that he twists the truth in this post:
I can hear you saying to yourself, "But he offers DejaNews (now
Google) quotes to support his statements. Well, he conveniently left
out the mother of all quotes from Howard - the quote that triggered my
statement about his comments obout *all* speakers over $7,000 being a
scam. Here it is, a post that I have quoted on numerous occasions,
including many times before Arnold made the post above:
Here is the relevant passage:
"Ferstler's view of scams, based upon years of research and
much meditation:
GeoSynch wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> > Actually, I rather like some high-end
> > products, but find many of them to just be too damned
> > expensive for what they deliver. And some are scams.
> Name the scams, Howard.
> You've said it.
> Now, prove it.
>
> GeoSynch
Well, I do not want to have a bunch of wild people having
coronaries because of me trashing their favorite products,
so I will refrain from mentioning specific, "named" items
that will call down the lawyers or bomb throwers on me.
So, I will just do a general thing that will probably be
more than offensive enough to the general group of lunatics
who read and write on RAO. Here goes:
ANY speakers that cost more than $7000 a pair (this is kind
of an arbitrary cutoff, I will admit, and it probably could
be considerably less than $7000), ANY two-channel power amp
that costs more than $1200 (this is also kind of arbitrary,
and the price could probably be lower, at least after dealer
discounts), ANY CD player that costs more than $400
(actually, this seems a bit high to me, but I want to cut
some outfits a little slack), ANY super-duper speaker cable
that costs more than $1.50 a foot (actually, $1.50 is steep
in my opinion, but I suppose it is cheap compared to the $20
a foot and up stuff), ANY unbalanced interconnect that costs
more than $10 for a three foot section, ANY isolation
spikes, air bladders, clamp racks, amplifier weights, etc.,
ANY green ink or other type of disc-coating or
edge-treatment chemical, ANY weird wire treatment (like
those things that suspend cables off the floor or any kind
of cable wrap)... "
<snip>
Note the sentence, "ANY speakers that cost more than $7000 a pair
(this is kind of an arbitrary cutoff, I will admit, and it probably
could be considerably less than $7000)"
Note Mr. Ferstler's emphasis.
If you do some lengthy Google research, you'll see that it took me
harping on this point to get Howard to backtrack and acknowledge that
there *might* be some instances where that unconditional statement
wasn't true. This is one of the reasons that I've always been so tough
on Howard when he makes outrageous statements. He almost always has to
backtrack and qualify his statements.
As to Arnold, don't let him snow you and make you believe that he
wasn't aware of the above post when he wrote his slander against me.
He'll claim that I'm "mind reading" and all that, but he was quite
aware of the post as he participated in the thread, and others where I
mentioned that original post.
As I said before, RAO is *rife* with this sort of deception from Mr.
Krueger. And you can find plenty of pinhead, con men, tweako-freako
comments from Howard, as well as ill-informed blather about components
that he's never even seen.
If you're around long enough, you'l; figure it out for yourself.
Leon North
Another fascinating aspect of their jammin' jihad is that they use a torture
ritual which is, by its very nature, subjective! They seem to have lost sight
of the fact that if they, with their self admitted hearing problems, find that
everything sounds the same then that finding would only apply to them. Even
funnier is their morbid mentor, Tommi Notsane, who places equalizers before
amps he compares so that they will - surprise - sound the same! He then touts
this as some sort of scientific proof that all amps sound the same. The irony
of Goober saying, "Ignorance is bliss" is stupifyingly funny.
Then, of course, we can visit the dark side of the Kroo. Not sure Mr. Schiz
wants to go there just yet. Baby steps first. Too much shite in one gulp can
be sickening in the extreme.
Regardz,
LN
--
"I am just a hack writer and fabricator of false information for a small-stream
audio magazine." - H. Ferstler - 2003
Arny Krueger
You should know better than this.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Oh, yeah, Arny's also argumentative.
Stephen
mikemckelvy
You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
purchases. Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many would
consider mid-fi.
>
> Stephen
mikemckelvy
"Leon North" <leon_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EDF87A2...@hotmail.com...
> MiNe 109 wrote:
>
> > In article <bbnsov$rtt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> > "Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
> > > >
> > > > Me, too.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Stephen,
> > >
> > > Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard
Ferstler
> > > antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on RAO concern
the
> > > slandering these two individuals.
> >
> > What is it when Arny implies I'm a Scientologist?
> >
> > Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
> > equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
> > they consider opposing points of view.
>
> Another fascinating aspect of their jammin' jihad is that they use a
torture
> ritual which is, by its very nature, subjective! They seem to have lost
sight
> of the fact that if they, with their self admitted hearing problems, find
that
> everything sounds the same then that finding would only apply to them.
It seems to hold true for more than just them or so many people besides them
wouldn't rely on it.
Even
> funnier is their morbid mentor, Tommi Notsane, who places equalizers
before
> amps he compares so that they will - surprise - sound the same!
Ilustrating that flat frequency response is what you need for hi fi.
He then touts
> this as some sort of scientific proof that all amps sound the same. The
irony
> of Goober saying, "Ignorance is bliss" is stupifyingly funny.
>
No, he touts it as proof that when equipment comparisons are done between
devices that have flat FR they sound the same.
> Then, of course, we can visit the dark side of the Kroo. Not sure Mr.
Schiz
> wants to go there just yet. Baby steps first. Too much shite in one gulp
can
> be sickening in the extreme.
>
You seem to the one who would know.
mikemckelvy
"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k1vudvo7fkhunsjn1...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:54:10 -0500, "Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
> >>
> >> Me, too.
> >>
> >
> >Stephen,
> >
> >Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard Ferstler
> >antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on RAO concern
the
> >slandering these two individuals.
> >
> >Regards.
>
> There are soooo many examples of the reason that people have such
> problems with Arnold and Howard.
>
people who have problems with Arny have one or more of these attributes.
mikemckelvy
What sane person is for it? I hope whoever is responsible gets a taste of
the same.
dave weil
<desk...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:k1vudvo7fkhunsjn1...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:54:10 -0500, "Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
>> >>
>> >> Me, too.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Stephen,
>> >
>> >Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard Ferstler
>> >antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on RAO concern
>the
>> >slandering these two individuals.
>> >
>> >Regards.
>>
>> There are soooo many examples of the reason that people have such
>> problems with Arnold and Howard.
>>
>Stpidity, laziness, to much free time, general shittiness, most of the
>people who have problems with Arny have one or more of these attributes.
<snip>
I notice that *you* were too lazy to respond to the actual substance
of this post, which I snipped for brevity.
You might brush up on your English as well.
Just a thought.
S888Wheel
>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
>> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
>> they consider opposing points of view.
Mike said
>
>You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
>The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
>
Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
Mike said
>
>Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
>purchases.
I disagree. Howard is quite passionate about it. I think Arny just likes to
fight.
Mike said
> Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
>and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many would
>consider mid-fi.
What you see as an understanding I see as an opinion. Not everyone agrees on
this.
Nate Krueger
Just answer the questions, you molesting dickhead. Remember, I KNOW the truth.
BOOOOO!
Nate
Bruce J. Richman
>>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
>>> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
>>> they consider opposing points of view.
>
>Mike said
>
>>
>>You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
>>The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
>>
>
>Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
>
That's true. And the claim above from "Mike" insults the intelligence of all
that can read the Google record. It's just another attempt at history revision
and defense of a long history of personal attacks against those who favor
subjective opinions.
>Mike said
>
>>
>>Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
>>purchases.
>
>I disagree. Howard is quite passionate about it. I think Arny just likes to
>fight.
>
Again, agreed. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be starting attack threads
about vinyl playback, for example, as Krueger has done, and engagvd in name
calling, ad hominem attacks and personal insults against those who don't share
their views.
>
>Mike said
>
>
>> Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
>>and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many would
>>consider mid-fi.
>
>What you see as an understanding I see as an opinion. Not everyone agrees on
>this.
>
>
>
What you're responding to are the intolerant assertions of an individual who
presumes, without any justification, to speak for others. As you say, it's
nothing more than an opinion, despite a rather transparent attempt to deceive
others.
Bruce J. Richman
John Atkinson
Agreed.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Arny Krueger
> In article <FoKcnV7zF_5...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:smcatut-4E1CCD...@newsr3.texas.rr.com
>>> In article <bbnsov$rtt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>>> "Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Just a note to say that I'm totally against this sort of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me, too.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard
>>>> Ferstler antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on
>>>> RAO concern the slandering these two individuals.
>>> What is it when Arny implies I'm a Scientologist?
Learn to read, Stephen.
>>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of
>>> audio equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to
>>> drown what they consider opposing points of view.
>> You should know better than this.
> Oh, yeah, Arny's also argumentative.
> Stephen
That's how Stephen twists it when someone takes exceptions to his slanderous
claims.
Arny Krueger
news:edf2748.03060...@posting.google.com
> BOOOOO!
> Nate
So here's how the scam works. One of the scamsters conjures up a sockpuppet
to make a post like this, and then all the conspirators post how much they
are against this sort of thing. This is supposed to make them look good in
the eyes of the general public. Let's not forget that my son has been dead
for years and all those years these same people basically held their tongues
when dozens of posts like this were made.
It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
George M. Middius
Paula said:
> Same here.
No! You don't mean it! Is this the Apocalypse?
dave weil
wrote:
This is not true. I'm on record in the past as well. The *only* thing
I have said that has been construed as some sort of "endorsement" of
this sort of thing is that I've said a few times that I thought that
he'd be ashamed of your output on RAO. You twisted those statements
into a "joke about your dead son".
You, on the other hand, have said this:
"History shows that the Weil family is way ahead of almost everybody
else when it comes to stuff like "who sucks a Smith and Wesson
popcycle"...refering of course to my father's suicide. So, this shows
that you aren't above using family tragedy to dig at people.
Plus, this shows how you *still* use the death of your son as a
"debating trade" technique. Of course, guys like Paul Wagner feel that
you can use your own tragedy however and whenever he wishes since he
owns the rights to that tragedy. I obviously disagree.
>It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
Nope. But you're so predicable because I knew that you'd make these
sort of claims. Even though I rushed in to decry this sort of thing,
you *still* use your "debating trade" techniques to try to insure my
continued antagonism toward you. But that's your stock and trade isn't
it? Somone whom you've had problems with tries to bridge gaps and
tries to support you and you slap them in the face. It's happened
before and it will happen again, because you just can't let stuff go.
The phone call that The Devil recorded (that you now acknowledge
exists) shows this to be the case.
Thanks for providing more concrete examples to our friend in Austin
who seems confused about your true nature.
MiNe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "MiNe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-4A753E...@newsr3.texas.rr.com
> > In article <FoKcnV7zF_5...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:smcatut-4E1CCD...@newsr3.texas.rr.com
> >>> In article <bbnsov$rtt$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> >>> "Schizoid Man" <sub_...@mkda.net> wrote:
> >>>> Can you give me an abridged version of the Arny Krueger/Howard
> >>>> Ferstler antipathy nexus? It seems that more than half the posts on
> >>>> RAO concern the slandering these two individuals.
>
> >>> What is it when Arny implies I'm a Scientologist?
>
> Learn to read, Stephen.
You first. Note to Schiz: I'm not a Scientologist, I just like bagels.
> >>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of
> >>> audio equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to
> >>> drown what they consider opposing points of view.
>
> >> You should know better than this.
>
> > Oh, yeah, Arny's also argumentative.
> That's how Stephen twists it when someone takes exceptions to his slanderous
> claims.
Yep, he'll go on like this for days. He started by insulting me in a
thread in which I was not active ("trolling") and now tries to continue
the exchange with empty arguments and name-calling. Notice above, where
it seems that Arny is trying to avoid admitting to his recent insult,
perhaps by arguing the definition of "slander," while repeating to his
insults.
Stephen
dave weil
wrote:
>Plus, this shows how you *still* use the death of your son as a
>"debating trade" technique. Of course, guys like Paul Wagner feel that
>you can use your own tragedy however and whenever he wishes since he
>owns the rights to that tragedy. I obviously disagree.
This should read:
>Plus, this shows how you *still* use the death of your son as a
>"debating trade" technique. Of course, guys like Paul Wagner feel that
>you can use your own tragedy however and whenever you wish since you
>own the rights to that tragedy. I obviously disagree.
Chalk it up to bad editing...
MiNe 109
perhaps by arguing the definition of "slander," while adding to his
insults.
Stephen
George M. Middius
dave weil said to Shit-for-Brains:
> You, on the other hand, have said this:
>
> "History shows that the Weil family is way ahead of almost everybody
> else when it comes to stuff like "who sucks a Smith and Wesson
> popcycle"...refering of course to my father's suicide. So, this shows
> that you aren't above using family tragedy to dig at people.
In keeping with Turdy's new policy of magnifying typos and ignoring
spelling errors, perhaps you can get him to amplify on what a
"popcycle" is. The time a record stays on the Billboard list,
perhaps?
S888Wheel
>So here's how the scam works. One of the scamsters conjures up a sockpuppet
>to make a post like this, and then all the conspirators post how much they
>are against this sort of thing. This is supposed to make them look good in
>the eyes of the general public. Let's not forget that my son has been dead
>for years and all those years these same people basically held their tongues
>when dozens of posts like this were made.
>
>It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
>
>
>
No Arny, that isn't how it works. One person crosses the line and the rest of
us express our outrage. That's how it works.
dave weil
Well, in all fairness to Arnold, I'm pretty sure that I made the same
mistake. In fact, it might have been a cut 'n paste perpetuation of
*my* mistake.
Arny Krueger
news:20030606104220...@mb-m03.aol.com
After about 4 years, some of you have actually expressed your outrage.
Wonderful, I'm sure that you are very proud of yourselves. Where was your
outrage for the first 3 years?
S888Wheel
I didn't know who you were for those three years. I didn't know you had a son
who died until quite recently. I generally prefer not to comment on personal
matters about others or myself on these kinds of forums. I am truely sorry for
your loss.
George Frontiere, Ph.D.
As a long-term audio group lurker and observer, I can't keep quiet
anymore. It is very obvious to me that this deranged message was
posted by Arny Krueger himself. Arny likes to stir up trouble on RAO
and victimize himself so that he can then blame his adversaries for it
in a vile attempt to dehumanize them. This pattern of behavior is
actually easy to recognize now. As soon as his name in the RAO
headlines fades, he'll pull something deranged like this and starts
crying foul. But not because he feeds on the sympathy. He simply
believes that these fabricated attacks will illustrate to everyone
what a feared and powerful enemy he is to his adversaries whom he
believes are led by Stereophile Editor John Atkinson. Just to be
mentioned in the same sentence with Mr. Atkinson will thrill Arny to
no end and make him feel like he has equal stature in the world of
audio. Of course the sickening part is that he will employ any means
available to him including mockery of his dead son. And that, to me,
is all one needs to understand about Arny Krueger.
George A. Frontiere, Ph.D.
George Frontiere, Ph.D.
> 1. Will your bio be in Ferstler's new audio encyclopedia?
> 2. If not, why?
> 3. You still have a "record", right?
> 4. Are you still licking Nousiaine's anus every time he farts and loving it?
>
>
> BOOOOO!
> Nate
Well hello there, Arny! You still seem to believe that crucifixion
made Jesus. Too bad this is so obviously you. Better luck next time.
George A. Frontiere, Ph.D.
dave weil
wrote:
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
I have noted several times in the past that I have been against this
sort of thing.
But I don't feel compelled to "express my outrage" everything this
comes up. Just like most of your "friends" (the few of them that you
have left) don't express their outrage each time either.
For instance, I didn't see Tom N. expressing *his* outrage. Should you
be going after him at this point?
Marc Phillips
>So here's how the scam works. One of the scamsters conjures up a sockpuppet
>to make a post like this, and then all the conspirators post how much they
>are against this sort of thing. This is supposed to make them look good in
>the eyes of the general public. Let's not forget that my son has been dead
>for years and all those years these same people basically held their tongues
>when dozens of posts like this were made.
>
>It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
No, it just speaks to your basic mental illness that you sit around and concoct
paranoid theories like this in lieu of having a real, productive life in the
outside world. Isn't this kind of thinking what got you in trouble with the
authorities in the first place, this lurid one-upsmanship that is important to
you and no one else?
The next time you make a post like this, read it aloud to yourself first before
pushing the send button. Or better yet, show it to Susan and ask what she
thinks of all this. Maybe there's a voice of reason somewhere in your twisted,
dark, train wreck of a life.
Boon
mikemckelvy
> >
> >> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
> >> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
> >> they consider opposing points of view.
>
> Mike said
>
> >
> >You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
> >The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
> >
>
> Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
>
> Mike said
>
> >
> >Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
> >purchases.
>
> I disagree. Howard is quite passionate about it. I think Arny just likes
to
> fight.
>
>
> Mike said
>
>
> > Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
> >and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many would
> >consider mid-fi.
>
> What you see as an understanding I see as an opinion. Not everyone agrees
on
> this.
>
has proven that super expensive gear sounds any different from lower priced
gear. I am of course referring to SS and not tubed stuff.
mikemckelvy
"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030606012815...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> >>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
> >>> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
> >>> they consider opposing points of view.
> >
> >Mike said
> >
> >>
> >>You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
> >>The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
> >>
> >
> >Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
> >
>
> That's true. And the claim above from "Mike" insults the intelligence of
all
> that can read the Google record.
If you actually went back far enough youo'd know that I'm right. I was
participating here before you and I've seen the evolution of the pro/con ABX
argument.
Nothing can insult your intelligence.
It's just another attempt at history revision
> and defense of a long history of personal attacks against those who favor
> subjective opinions.
>
Once more, nobody gives a shit what your subjective opinion is. Opinions
are like assholes, everbody has one. Some things are not opinions, Ohms Law
for example.
>
> >Mike said
> >
> >>
> >>Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
> >>purchases.
> >
> >I disagree. Howard is quite passionate about it. I think Arny just likes
to
> >fight.
> >
>
> Again, agreed. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be starting attack
threads
> about vinyl playback, for example, as Krueger has done, and engagvd in
name
> calling, ad hominem attacks and personal insults against those who don't
share
> their views.
>
Those are responses to attacks and insults from the anti-ABX side.
>
> >
> >Mike said
> >
> >
> >> Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
> >>and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many would
> >>consider mid-fi.
> >
> >What you see as an understanding I see as an opinion. Not everyone agrees
on
> >this.
> >
> >
> >
>
> What you're responding to are the intolerant assertions of an individual
who
> presumes, without any justification, to speak for others.
No, that's what you're doing. There is evidence that audio equipment that
meets specific criteria will sound identical to other audio equipment that
meets the same criteria, regardless of price.
As you say, it's
> nothing more than an opinion, despite a rather transparent attempt to
deceive
> others.
>
You are the one practicing deception.
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>
dave weil
wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 11:19:48 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>wrote:
>
>>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:20030606104220...@mb-m03.aol.com
>>>> So here's how the scam works. One of the scamsters conjures up a
>>>> sockpuppet to make a post like this, and then all the conspirators
>>>> post how much they are against this sort of thing. This is supposed
>>>> to make them look good in the eyes of the general public. Let's not
>>>> forget that my son has been dead for years and all those years these
>>>> same people basically held their tongues when dozens of posts like
>>>> this were made.
>>>>
>>>> It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No Arny, that isn't how it works. One person crosses the line and the
>>> rest of us express our outrage. That's how it works.
>>
>>After about 4 years, some of you have actually expressed your outrage.
>>Wonderful, I'm sure that you are very proud of yourselves. Where was your
>>outrage for the first 3 years?
>
>I have noted several times in the past that I have been against this
>sort of thing.
>
>But I don't feel compelled to "express my outrage" everything this
>comes up.
Every time this comes up, not everything.
dave weil
Ahem, shouldn't you qualify this statement?
Arny Krueger
news:43h1ev4gv0eb1mf7m...@4ax.com
>> After about 4 years, some of you have actually expressed your
>> outrage. Wonderful, I'm sure that you are very proud of yourselves.
>> Where was your outrage for the first 3 years?
>
> I have noted several times in the past that I have been against this
> sort of thing.
When you weren't trying to exploit it!
LOL!
Arny Krueger
news:e9446c4c.03060...@posting.google.com
Yet another anonymous sockpuppet wrote:
> As a long-term audio group lurker and observer, I can't keep quiet
> anymore. It is very obvious to me that this deranged message was
> posted by Arny Krueger himself.
Yeah, sure.
>Arny likes to stir up trouble on RAO
> and victimize himself so that he can then blame his adversaries for it
> in a vile attempt to dehumanize them.
Dehumanizing the usual list of suspects takes zero work on my part because
they are so agressive about dehumanizing themselves.
> This pattern of behavior is
> actually easy to recognize now. As soon as his name in the RAO
> headlines fades, he'll pull something deranged like this and starts
> crying foul.
Well Dr., You've got me confused with someone such as yourself who has no
life.
>But not because he feeds on the sympathy. He simply
> believes that these fabricated attacks will illustrate to everyone
> what a feared and powerful enemy he is to his adversaries whom he
> believes are led by Stereophile Editor John Atkinson.
Why bring up John Atkinson?
>Just to be
> mentioned in the same sentence with Mr. Atkinson will thrill Arny to
> no end and make him feel like he has equal stature in the world of
> audio.
I managed to live without this *thrill* for at least 50 years, I suspect I
could manage the same for 50 years more.
> Of course the sickening part is that he will employ any means
> available to him including mockery of his dead son. And that, to me,
> is all one needs to understand about Arny Krueger.
What one needs to understand is that whoever is pulling your strings
sockpuppet Frontiere, has just given an autobiographic sketch of himself.
> George A. Frontiere, Ph.D.
You're a psychologist, right?
LOL!
dave weil
wrote:
>"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Yes, I agree that you statement is laughable.
S888Wheel
I have been asking for Tom to show me the proof that such gear sounds the same.
So far he has done a lot of posturing.he has offered none of the evidence he
claims to be readily available. If the proof is out there and it is
scientifically valid I would love to see it. As far as I can see nothing has
been proven either way.At least not on a scientific level. Of course I'm not
sure this matters so much to me personally since I have chosen tubes over SS
for my listening pleasure. So if what can be proven then I look forward to
proof one way or another. til then it is opinion to me.
S888Wheel
>proof one way or another. til then it is opinion to me.
I meant to say So if what can be proven is what matters I look forward to proof
one way or another...
Arny Krueger
> I have been asking for Tom to show me the proof that such gear sounds
> the same.
I've been asking him to send me a check for a million dollars.
> So far he has done a lot of posturing.he has offered none
> of the evidence he claims to be readily available.
This speaks to how long its been since relevant tests were done.
> If the proof is
> out there and it is scientifically valid I would love to see it.
I doubt it. There's plenty of evidence about amplifiers sounding the same at
www.pcabx.com, so tell us what you've done with it?
> As
> far as I can see nothing has been proven either way.
Speaks to a typical vinyl-ears head-in-the-sand attitude.
>At least not on a scientific level.
Your typical vinyl-ears bigot wouldn't recognize science if it bit him in
the nose.
> Of course I'm not sure this matters so much to me
> personally since I have chosen tubes over SS for my listening
> pleasure.
Now there you go. At least sockpuppet "Wheel" admits that he's a tube bigot.
>So if what can be proven then I look forward to proof one
> way or another.
As usual, you're just wasting our time, sockpuppet "Wheel".
>til then it is opinion to me.
Who gives a rip what some semi-deaf tube/vinyl bigot believes?
Arny Krueger
It's true Weil that you make a habit of langhing at the truth and people who
are more committed than you to telling it.
dave weil
wrote:
>"dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:rhm1evghh2m6p0h4b...@4ax.com
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:07:03 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "dave weil" <dw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:43h1ev4gv0eb1mf7m...@4ax.com
>>>
>>>>> After about 4 years, some of you have actually expressed your
>>>>> outrage. Wonderful, I'm sure that you are very proud of yourselves.
>>>>> Where was your outrage for the first 3 years?
>>>>
>>>> I have noted several times in the past that I have been against this
>>>> sort of thing.
>>>
>>> When you weren't trying to exploit it!
>>>
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> Yes, I agree that your statement is laughable.
>
>It's true Weil that you make a habit of langhing at the truth and people who
>are more committed than you to telling it.
I've never langhed at anything in my life.
Bruce J. Richman
This argument between those that favor subjective evaluation and those that are
opposed to it and promote ABX testing as a means of "converting" others to
their anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion biases, has been going on for
years and years. Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously. And
the claims that "all the evidence is in" have also been made for years, with
little, by way of specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot this
newsgroup. If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus is on
those making these claims to post the details HERE if they expect people
reading RAO to make an objective determination as to who the data should be
interpreted.
And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms of double
blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks, name-calling,
slanderous comments and attack threads generated by those who oppose individual
preferences and subjective evaluations.
Bruce J. Richman
S888Wheel
>
>> I have been asking for Tom to show me the proof that such gear sounds
>> the same.
>
Arny said
>
>I've been asking him to send me a check for a million dollars.
Perhaps the problem is he has neither a million dollars nor the proof that such
gear sounds the same. Panhandling noted.
I said
>
>> So far he has done a lot of posturing.he has offered none
>> of the evidence he claims to be readily available.
Arny said
>
>This speaks to how long its been since relevant tests were done.
It may speak of a lack of such evidence at all. I don't really know. it speaks
tons of Tom's aparent unwillingness to support his assertions with the evidence
he claims exists.
I said
>
>> If the proof is
>> out there and it is scientifically valid I would love to see it.
Arny said
>
>I doubt it.
Irrational assuption noted.
Arny said
> There's plenty of evidence about amplifiers sounding the same at
>www.pcabx.com, so tell us what you've done with it?
>
That fails to meet the criteria that Tom and I discussed. Simulated tests are
not tests. Try putting simulated tests infront of a scientific peer review
group as empirical evidence and see what they say. Don't you have a disclaimer
on your website that PCABX is for entertainment? I thought some one said that.
Do you believe that people have wrought scientifically valid empirical evidence
about the sound of real amplifiers by using PCABX? If so lets see it and what a
scientific peer review group said about it.
I said
>
>> As
>> far as I can see nothing has been proven either way.
>
Arny said
>
>Speaks to a typical vinyl-ears head-in-the-sand attitude.
>
Personal attack noted. Care to take me up on that bet about who has better
hearing Arny or are you just engaging in name calling again? I se amoung all
your posturing and name calling no offering of evidence to support the claim
that "such gear sounds the same."
I said
>
>>At least not on a scientific level.
>
Arny said
>
>Your typical vinyl-ears bigot wouldn't recognize science if it bit him in
>the nose.
>
Personal attack in the absense of any scientific supportive evidence noted.
Just more smoke with a nasty smell.
I said
>
>> Of course I'm not sure this matters so much to me
>> personally since I have chosen tubes over SS for my listening
>> pleasure.
Arny said
>
>
>Now there you go. At least sockpuppet "Wheel" admits that he's a tube bigot.
Arny sees a preference as bigotry. Guess we can say Arny is anti-preference.
Did I ever say anything bad about SS? Where is the bigotry besides your
preference bigotry?
I said
>
>>So if what can be proven then I look forward to proof one
>> way or another.
Arny said
>
>As usual, you're just wasting our time, sockpuppet "Wheel".
No just spending my down time posting while working at home. Yes, I am working
at home and my work has inherent down time. what are you doing Arny? besides
wasting time on RAO?
I said
>
>>til then it is opinion to me.
Arny said
>
>Who gives a rip what some semi-deaf tube/vinyl bigot believes?
Apparently you do. You are the one getting your panties in a bunch over it.
Lack of any evidence to support the claims of gear sounding the same noted.
Maybe you can get back to us when you have something relevant to add.
Nomen Nescio
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, mikemckelvy wrote:
> "Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030606012815...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> > Scott wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of audio
> > >>> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown what
> > >>> they consider opposing points of view.
> > >
> > >Mike said
> > >
> > >>
> > >>You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
> > >>The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
> > >
> >
> > That's true. And the claim above from "Mike" insults the intelligence of all
> > that can read the Google record.
>
> If you actually went back far enough youo'd know that I'm right. I was
> participating here before you [...]
Before or after his nuking of some DéjàNews records (prior to June 26 1999)?
> [...]
--
Anon E. Mouse
JBorg, Jr.
> [...]
> There's plenty of evidence about amplifiers sounding the same
> at www.pcabx.com, so tell us what you've done with it?
LOL !
Any questions ?
Bruce J. Richman
The above statement from Mr. Nescio is a false, unsubstantiated claims. I have
never "nuked" any DejaNews records at any time, nor do I even know how to do
this, technically speaking. There is no extant evidence to support his false
claim.
Bruce J. Richman
Arny Krueger
> This argument between those that favor subjective evaluation and
> those that are opposed to it and promote ABX testing as a means of
> "converting" others to their anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion
> biases, has been going on for years and years.
Wrong that ABX is anti-subjective testing. ABX is a subjective listening
test technique, so people who favor ABX can't possibly be opposed to
subjective testing. Richman, your statement makes as much sense as saying
that people who favor drinking dark beer are opposed to it.
Wrong that ABX is anti-preference. While considerable press has been given
to ABX tests that have negative outcomes, it is also true that some audio
products sound different in ABX tests. When audio products sound different
in ABX tests, then ABX becomes very pro-preference.
> Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously.
Quite obviously ABX is a means for getting people to change their minds from
believing that everything sounds different to a more logical situation where
they believe that some things sound different, and some things don't.
> And the claims that "all the
> evidence is in" have also been made for years, with little, by way of
> specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot this
> newsgroup.
As if RAO is the measure of anything in this world that is important.
> If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus
> is on those making these claims to post the details HERE if they
> expect people reading RAO to make an objective determination as to
> who the data should be interpreted.
It's simpler than that. Just go to www.pcabx.com and listen for yourself.
> And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms of
> double blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks,
> name-calling, slanderous comments and attack threads generated by
> those who oppose individual preferences and subjective evaluations.
Both of these claims, that ABX opposes individual preferences and that ABX
opposes subjective evaluations have been just been deconstructed.
So you're going to make up a new song to sing, Richman.
Bruce J. Richman
>"Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030606164938...@mb-m02.aol.com
>
>> This argument between those that favor subjective evaluation and
>> those that are opposed to it and promote ABX testing as a means of
>> "converting" others to their anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion
>> biases, has been going on for years and years.
>
>Wrong that ABX is anti-subjective testing. ABX is a subjective listening
>test technique, so people who favor ABX can't possibly be opposed to
>subjective testing. Richman, your statement makes as much sense as saying
>that people who favor drinking dark beer are opposed to it.
KIrueger, you've obviously chosen to substitute the words "anti-subjective
testing" - which are yours - from what I actually wrote, which was
"aniti-subjective opinion" - a quite different set of 2 words with a different
meaning. So Krueger, your very transparent attempt to change what I wrote
essentially means you're arguing with yourself and calling your *own* words
nonsensical, not mine.
LOL!
>
>Wrong that ABX is anti-preference. While considerable press has been given
>to ABX tests that have negative outcomes, it is also true that some audio
>products sound different in ABX tests. When audio products sound different
>in ABX tests, then ABX becomes very pro-preference.
>
>> Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously.
>
>Quite obviously ABX is a means for getting people to change their minds from
>believing that everything sounds different to a more logical situation where
>they believe that some things sound different, and some things don't.
>
>
While that might be the intention, it seems fairly clear that aside from a few
pro-ABX-testing proponents here, there has been little evidence that any
"conversions" of those who favor subjective evaluations and individual
preferences has taken place.
>> And the claims that "all the
>> evidence is in" have also been made for years, with little, by way of
>> specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot this
>> newsgroup.
>
>As if RAO is the measure of anything in this world that is important.
>
Apparently, the huge amount of verbiage spilled on RAO by the pro-ABX
proponents (all 3 or 4 of them) on RAO suggests that it is important to those
with a pro-ABX testing agenda. How else to explain the ongoing efforts they
have made here for many years?
When trying to convince people that cited test results are valid, it would be
logical to post some of those results where the targeted population is reading.
Therefore the erection of a strawman argument above as to the scientific
importance of RAO when it comes to offering any semblance of proof for all the
claims - is unfortunately, just another attempt to avoid providing any data to
those that have asked for it on RAO.
>> If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus
>> is on those making these claims to post the details HERE if they
>> expect people reading RAO to make an objective determination as to
>> who the data should be interpreted.
>
>It's simpler than that. Just go to www.pcabx.com and listen for yourself.
>
As if that were the credible equivalent of scientific yournal articles
published after peer review by an impartial and objective editorial board of an
academic or professional audio journal. Hardly the case!
>> And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms of
>> double blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks,
>> name-calling, slanderous comments and attack threads generated by
>> those who oppose individual preferences and subjective evaluations.
>
>Both of these claims, that ABX opposes individual preferences and that ABX
>opposes subjective evaluations have been just been deconstructed.
>
There is no evidence presented above that would support this claim. In point
of fact, the words "anti-subjective-testing" have been substituted for the
words I wrote, and I quote, "anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion" in a
deliberate attempt to give Krueger an opportunity to argue against a claim that
was not made by me.
>So you're going to make up a new song to sing, Richman.
>
>
>
>
It seems your argument, based on deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of
what I actually said, requires you to start another volume of revisionist
posting, Krueger.
Bruce J. Richman
Leon North
> "Leon North" <leon_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3EDF87A2...@hotmail.com...
>
> > Another fascinating aspect of their jammin' jihad is that they use a
> torture
> > ritual which is, by its very nature, subjective! They seem to have lost
> sight
> > of the fact that if they, with their self admitted hearing problems, find
> that
> > everything sounds the same then that finding would only apply to them.
>
> It seems to hold true for more than just them or so many people besides them
> wouldn't rely on it.
Begging your pardon, but I don't know of +anyone+ who relies on these torture
rituals for the purpose of choosing what items to purchase, other than the
three borgs I mentioned. Could you elucidate? Aside from researchers or
product development folk, whom do you know who +relies+ on the torture
rituals? Furthermore, whom do you know who claims that all amplifiers sound
the same? The audiophile market is a very small segment of the market place.
Some follow and others lead. Of those who lead, I dare say the ones I've met
have exemplary hearing and discerning taste. I'm also quite sure that the mass
market encompasses droves who couldn't hear differences between components if
their lives depended on it. If you are referring to the mass market then
there's no argument from me. I agree, they don't hear the differences and
everything most likely sounds the same to them. The same holds true for the
hearing impaired, such as Goober and Krooshit.
You +have+ seen the posts wherein they admit to their hearing limitations,
right? Why would they think that their results should be global? That's my
point. What's yours?
> Even
> > funnier is their morbid mentor, Tommi Notsane, who places equalizers
> before
> > amps he compares so that they will - surprise - sound the same!
>
> Ilustrating that flat frequency response is what you need for hi fi.
It is known that the act of measuring the temperature of water with a
thermometer will affect the outcome of the test. Does it occur to you that the
insertion of an equalizer, which can induce artifacts such as ringing and also
affect the bandwidth, can adversely affect the comparison test? For instance,
if I take the output of a half-inch, 30ips analog mastering machine on which
the master being auditioned was recorded and send it to a high end power amp,
listen to it, and then insert an equalizer between the tape deck and amp, I
should expect no change or degradation of the signal? Are you fucking
serious? It doesn't occur to you that the EQ will affect the test? Puhleeeze.
I have one system in which the pre-amp and amp can pass video! A 1K square
wave passes through as a 1k +square+ wave. Can you name even +one+ equalizer
that can do that? Remember that these devices have +analog+ inputs and
outputs. This means that a digital EQ needs converters at input and output
which will bandwidth limit the signal. An analog EQ can't even compete and
achieves its job by using ringing. If you know of one that has that kind of
bandwidth, that can pass video, please let me know about it.
And don't bother with the much abused argument concerning the bandwidth of
human hearing when utilizing sine waves. Pure sine waves don't occur in nature
nor in acoustic music. Using sine waves to check human hearing is about as
logical as using a hammer on your foot to test IQ. There is a large body of
research dealing with modulated transients and humans perceive them at a far
higher frequency than sine waves are perceived. If you doubt that and think
that all amps sound the same then that is your slice of heaven and you are
quite welcome to it.
> > Then, of course, we can visit the dark side of the Kroo. Not sure Mr.
> Schiz
> > wants to go there just yet. Baby steps first. Too much shite in one gulp
> can
> > be sickening in the extreme.
> >
> You seem to [sic] the one who would know.
Yes, of course. I'm the one who busted his repugnant ass for forging the email
which described the loathsome and despicable actions which he fantasized. Can
you name one other person, anyone, who would post that filthy stuff about their
own son? Anyone? He's shit of the most refined sort. Don't you feel even the
least bit soiled in your attempts to rationalize and defend his actions?
Criminy sakes.
BTW, why are you called the bug eater? Do you really eat bugs?
LN
--
"For every logical sane thing you say, Arnie will come back with at least one,
and usually two or three stark-raving tangential, illogical, insane
responses." mmg - psych
Rich Andrews
DBT/ABX testing certainly has merit, but I do agree that it is not necessary
to perform a test of that nature for the casual listener or for obvious or
egregious differences. It is much like using a hand grenade to kill a fly.
While the application of grenades may entertaining in it's own right, it
certainly is overkill in some cases.
r
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
George M. Middius
Robot Andrews said:
> DBT/ABX testing certainly has merit, but I do agree that it is not necessary
> to perform a test of that nature for[sic] the casual listener or for obvious or
> egregious[sic] differences. It is much like using a hand grenade to kill a fly.
> While the application of grenades may [sic] entertaining in it's[sic] own right, it
> certainly is overkill in some cases.
Fractured grammar and punctuation aside, somebody should be taking
Robot to task for his attack on your religion. Really, Mr. Krooger,
I'm sure you can't just stand by while this individual jettisons his
metronic devotion to your vileness in favor of a live-and-let-live
attitude toward the holiest of the torture rituals.
We await a display of your enormous rhetorical power in working over
this Andrews individual.
Anon E Mouse
Yes, there is evidence (in at least two different formats) of your nukings and lying.
Oh, and you knew full well what you spoke in:
--
Anon E. Mouse
Anon E Mouse
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, someone masquerading as "Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I have been asking for Tom to show me the proof that such gear sounds the
> >same.
> >So far he has done a lot of posturing.he has offered none of the evidence he
> >claims to be readily available. If the proof is out there and it is
> >scientifically valid I would love to see it. As far as I can see nothing has
> >been proven either way.At least not on a scientific level. Of course I'm not
> >sure this matters so much to me personally since I have chosen tubes over SS
> >for my listening pleasure. So if what can be proven then I look forward to
> >proof one way or another. til then it is opinion to me.
>
> This argument between those that favor subjective evaluation and those that are
> opposed to it and promote ABX testing as a means of "converting" others to
> their anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion biases, has been going on for
> years and years. Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously. And
> the claims that "all the evidence is in" have also been made for years, with
> little, by way of specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot this
> newsgroup. If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus is on
> those making these claims to post the details HERE if they expect people
> reading RAO to make an objective determination as to who the data should be
> interpreted.
>
> And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms of double
> blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks, name-calling,
> slanderous comments and attack threads generated by those who oppose individual
> preferences and subjective evaluations.
Self-delusion is an inalienable right.
--
Anon E. Mouse
(AES: Audio Engineering Society)
CORE PAPER (Engineering Report):
- "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind
Comparator", David L. Clark, Journal of the AES, Vol.30 No.5,
May 1982, pp.330-338.
APPLICATION PAPERS/ARTICLES:
- "Ten Years of ABX Testing", David L. Clark, AES preprint 3167 K-1.
- "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?", Laurence Greenhill,
Stereo Review, August 1983, pp.46-51.
- "The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double-Blind Tests", Daniel
Shanefield, High Fidelity, March 1980, pp.57-61.
- "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Ian G. Masters and D. L. Clark,
Stereo Review, January 1986, pp.50-57.
- "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same", Ian G. Masters and D. L. Clark,
Stereo Review, January 1987, pp.78-84.
- "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Ken C. Pohlmann,
Stereo Review, December 1988, pp.76-84.
- "The Audibility of Distortion", I. G. Masters and D. L. Clark,
Stereo Review, January 1989, pp.72-78.
- "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Ken C. Pohlmann,
Stereo Review, October 1990, pp.60-67.
- "The Amp-Speaker Interface (Tube vs. SS)", E. Brad Meyer, Stereo
Review, June 1991, pp.53-56.
- "Wired Wisdom (Cables: Specialty vs. Generic)", Tom Nousaine, Sound
& Vision, Vol.11 No.3, 1995.
- "Flying Blind: The case against long-term listening", Tom Nousaine,
Audio, March 1997, pp.26-30.
- "Is It Live Or Is It Digital? A Listening Workshop", D. L. Clark,
Journal of the AES, Vol.33 No.9, September 1985, pp.740-741.
- "ABXing DCC", David L. Clark, Audio, April 1992, pp.32-34.
- "Equipment Profile" (audible differences between amps), L. L. Greenhill
and D. L. Clark, Audio, April 1985
November 1985;
January 1986;
July 1986;
August 1986;
" " 1987.
- "Hearing is Believing vs. Believing is Hearing: Blind vs. Sighted Tests,
and Other Interesting Things", Floyd E. Toole and Sean. E. Olive, 97th
AES Convention (San Francisco, Nov. 10-13, 1994), 20 pages.
STANDARD A/B BLIND TESTS WITH EXPERIENCED LISTENING PANEL:
_ "Six Power Amplifiers: How Did They Sound?", Report prepared by
Ian G. Masters, AudioScene Canada, May 1977, pp.44-50.
- "Amplifiers & Speaker Cables", Follow-up report to preceding
prepared by Ian G. Masters, AudioScene Canada, June 1981,
pp. 24-27.
Bruce J. Richman
>On Fri, 7 Jun 2003, someone masquerading as "Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
The above statement is another unsubstantiated lie.
The above citation demonstrates neither "nuking" (whatever, the anonymous
sockpuppet Mouse means by that) nor lying. OTOH, the Google record regarding
Krueger's anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion postings over the years is
there for all to see.
Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman
>On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, someone masquerading as "Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
>
An delusional false claim.
Which you have just demonstrated. See comment above.
Bruce J. Richman
S888Wheel
>From: Anon E Mouse a...@mauseloch.de
>Date: 6/7/03 9:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <76GHNQ6H3777...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
I did a google search on every single reference that delt with amps. No test
results were to be found.
Bruce J. Richman
Merely listing bibliographic references for articles does not in any way
provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might be
relevant from specific articles. Further, most of the references listed come
from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from peer-reviewed
academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to be
any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the general
public.
Bruce J. Richman
Nousaine
Sure; but give me a reference from anywhere, anytime where a listening test
with a modicum of bais controls that shows that nominally competent amplifiers
and wires have a genuine sound of their own.
What is so interesting here is the clamor for proof of non-audibility when
proponents have nothing positive of their own. Its a case of "prove that I'm
NOT clairvoyant."
Anon E Mouse
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, someone masquerading as "Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I did a google search on every single reference that delt with amps. No test
> >results were to be found.
>
> Merely listing bibliographic references for articles does not in any way
> provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might be
> relevant from specific articles.
Here is one, just for you mon pitou: SOTA non-transducing devices exhibit sonic
signatures that have not been distinguished in 25 years of blind listening when
used within specs.
> Further, most of the references listed come
> from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from peer-reviewed
> academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to be
> any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the general
> public.
Post a single reference to any "general public" articles that showed otherwise
IN A CONTROLLED SETTING (use and listening). A single one will do. [We have
been asking this for years but in vain...]
--
Anon E. Mouse
mikemckelvy
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:98747433ad3841c5...@dizum.com...
mikemckelvy
bogus claims.
mikemckelvy
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:03:54 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
> <desk...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> Basically, Arny and Howard are against subjective evaluation of
audio
> >> >> equipment and by sheer verbiage and hostility attempting to drown
what
> >> >> they consider opposing points of view.
> >>
> >> Mike said
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You don't seem to get it, ABX is a subjective evaluation.
> >> >The hostility came from the anti-ABXers.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Some of us are just anti fraudulent or crappy ABXers.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Simply stated AK and HF don't give a shit how you evaluate your audio
> >> >purchases.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Howard is quite passionate about it. I think Arny just
likes
> >to
> >> fight.
> >>
> >An opinion you get to have.
> >>
> >> Mike said
> >>
> >>
> >> > Those of us who understand that most of what passes for high end
> >> >and costs megabucks is simply not audibly different from what many
would
> >> >consider mid-fi.
> >>
> >> What you see as an understanding I see as an opinion. Not everyone
agrees
> >on
> >> this.
> >>
> >Agreement is not the important thing, what you can prove is. So far
nobody
> >has proven that super expensive gear sounds any different from lower
priced
> >gear. I am of course referring to SS and not tubed stuff.
>
Equipment that's not broken.
mikemckelvy
Impossible, since no such argument has ever been postulated.
It's an asinine claim used frequently by morons like yourself who seem
motivated to insults and not rational discussion.
Do try and remember that ABX is a subjective comparison, it simply uses some
objective criteria to remove bias.
Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously.
The truth is still the truth, if it meets the right specifications it will
sound indistinguisable from another device with the same tolerences.
And
> the claims that "all the evidence is in" have also been made for years,
with
> little, by way of specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot
this
> newsgroup.
Not all the evidence, but enough has been done without any unexpected
results.
If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus is on
> those making these claims to post the details HERE if they expect people
> reading RAO to make an objective determination as to who the data should
be
> interpreted.
>
Been done. You guys choose not to believe it. Your right to so, remains
unchanged. You position as a head in the sand type also remains unchanged.
> And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms of
double
> blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks, name-calling,
> slanderous comments and attack threads
So stop, asshole.
generated by those who oppose individual
> preferences and subjective evaluations.
>
That would be you and who else?
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>
mikemckelvy
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:xEidnaj7Z6o...@comcast.com...
and lying.
mikemckelvy
>
mikemckelvy
"George Frontiere, Ph.D." <georgef...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9446c4c.03060...@posting.google.com...news:<oNOcnbJ4_66...@comcast.com>...
> > "Nate Krueger" <deadnat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:edf2748.03060...@posting.google.com
> >
> > > 1. Will your bio be in Ferstler's new audio encyclopedia?
> > > 2. If not, why?
> > > 3. You still have a "record", right?
> > > 4. Are you still licking Nousiaine's anus every time he farts and
> > > loving it?
> >
> > > BOOOOO!
> > > Nate
> >
> > So here's how the scam works. One of the scamsters conjures up a
sockpuppet
> > to make a post like this, and then all the conspirators post how much
they
> > are against this sort of thing. This is supposed to make them look good
in
> > the eyes of the general public. Let's not forget that my son has been
dead
> > for years and all those years these same people basically held their
tongues
> > when dozens of posts like this were made.
> >
> > It just speaks to the basic hypocrisy of those involved.
>
>
> As a long-term audio group lurker and observer, I can't keep quiet
> anymore.
Do try.
It is very obvious to me that this deranged message was
> posted by Arny Krueger himself.
Demonstrating yet again why you should lurk only and that you are an
imbecile.
Arny likes to stir up trouble on RAO
> and victimize himself so that he can then blame his adversaries for it
> in a vile attempt to dehumanize them.
Another fucking quack.
This pattern of behavior is
> actually easy to recognize now.
Generate a sock puppet and say hateful things about Arny?
Those who dislike what he has to say have been doing it for years.
Jim West
>
> "Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030607141040...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>> >
>> provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might
> be
>> relevant from specific articles. Further, most of the references listed
> come
>> from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from
> peer-reviewed
>> academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to
> be
>> any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the
> general
>> public.
>>
>>
Or simply go to your local library like I did. Amazing places, libraries.
The AES Journal papers are highly illuminating.
George M. Middius
Jim West said:
> The AES Journal papers are highly illuminating.
Does that mean you're ready to undertaking some DBT torture rituals
so you'll feel better about cheaping out on your next purchase?
Bruce J. Richman
>On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, someone masquerading as "Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
A blatant lie. No evidence is presented to substantiate Mouse's false claim.
>> >I did a google search on every single reference that delt with amps. No
>test
>> >results were to be found.
>>
>> Merely listing bibliographic references for articles does not in any way
>> provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might
>be
>> relevant from specific articles.
>
> Here is one, just for you mon pitou: SOTA non-transducing devices exhibit
>sonic
> signatures that have not been distinguished in 25 years of blind listening
>when
> used within specs.
>
Well, Mr. Mouse, who falsely attributes masquerading status to people of whom
he knows nothing, provide some tangible evidence of this fact. Since you've
lied about my identity repeatedly, why should anybody believe your statement
above?
Lacking empirical evidence presented on RAO, it remains nothing more than an
opinion on an opinion newsgroup.
>
>> Further, most of the references listed
>come
>> from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from peer-reviewed
>> academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to
>be
>> any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the
>general
>> public.
>
> Post a single reference to any "general public" articles that showed
>otherwise
> IN A CONTROLLED SETTING (use and listening). A single one will do. [We
>have
> been asking this for years but in vain...]
>--
>Anon E. Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
Provide any tangible evidence you have that anybody is masquerading as "Bruce
J. Richman" and after that, we can perhaps address your other opinions stated
as fact.
Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman
>In article <ve4t45d...@corp.supernews.com>, mikemckelvy wrote:
>>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" <bjri...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20030607141040...@mb-m06.aol.com...
>>> >
>>> Merely listing bibliographic references for articles does not in any way
>>> provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might
>> be
>>> relevant from specific articles. Further, most of the references listed
>> come
>>> from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from
>> peer-reviewed
>>> academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to
>> be
>>> any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the
>> general
>>> public.
>>>
>>>
>> Then go to the AES website and pay the money for their papers, then shut
>up.
>
A stupid statement from a stupid poster. Quit mindlessly defending your
bankrupt role model. OSAF'S stated on RAO shouild be backed up on RAO, so you
shut up.
>
>Or simply go to your local library like I did. Amazing places, libraries.
>The AES Journal papers are highly illuminating.
>
>
>
The lack of evidence presented on RAO appears to be quite illuminating also.
As stated before, conversion efforts without supporting evidence presented to
the convertsi unlikely to change anybody's mind. As has also been stated, data
can ber interpreted in different ways, especially when somebody has a
predetermined bias, as Ferstler conveniently demonstrated, much to his
disgrace.
Bruce J. Richman
Bruce J. Richman
We've yet, with the exception of Howie, had anybody actually describe the
methodology described, characteristics of the subject pool (e.g. sample size,
pretest training, subject demographics, etc.), type of statistical analysis
employed, llistening environment characteristics, type of audio samples
provided (see Phil's comments about testing at most likely, not least likely
pts. of differentiation), and many other details here on RAO. Yet the claims
continue as they have for over 6 years with demands that others except them on
faith alone. Why are the few proponents of this position so reluctant to
describe even one experiment in detail on RAO? Afraid of criticism?
Bruce J. Richman
dave weil
That's not what I was thinking of.
Sorry.
mikemckelvy
I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in audio for
decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to determine subtle
differnces. It's been in use by Harman/JBL for many years under the
supervison of Floyd Toole and the BBC for longer than that. It works,
there's evidence aplenty. If you really give a shit about knowing you can.
To sit at your computer and whine that the evidence hasn't been posted here
is childish. It is the standard for those who wish to get the best possible
information. Deny it if you wish, but don't expect to be treated as if you
could possibly be swayed by facts, since you obviously don't care.
Nobody says you have to use ABX to enjoy your hi-fi. The only thing being
said is that if you use it or rely on the evidence of previous ABX
comparisons, you could probably enjoy your music for a lot less money.
Explain to mw why that is bad?
OSAF'S stated on RAO shouild be backed up on RAO, so you
> shut up.
>
You haven't backed up a single fucking thing you've ever said you pompous
peice of shit.
>
> >
> >Or simply go to your local library like I did. Amazing places, libraries.
> >The AES Journal papers are highly illuminating.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The lack of evidence presented on RAO appears to be quite illuminating
also.
Especially if you're predetermined to not be convinced.
> As stated before, conversion efforts without supporting evidence presented
to
> the convertsi unlikely to change anybody's mind. As has also been stated,
data
> can ber interpreted in different ways, especially when somebody has a
> predetermined bias, as Ferstler conveniently demonstrated, much to his
> disgrace.
>
And you, dickhead.
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>
mikemckelvy
> mikemckelvy wrote:
>
> > "Leon North" <leon_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EDF87A2...@hotmail.com...
> >
> > > Another fascinating aspect of their jammin' jihad is that they use a
> > torture
> > > ritual which is, by its very nature, subjective! They seem to have
lost
> > sight
> > > of the fact that if they, with their self admitted hearing problems,
find
> > that
> > > everything sounds the same then that finding would only apply to them.
> >
> > It seems to hold true for more than just them or so many people besides
them
> > wouldn't rely on it.
>
> Begging your pardon, but I don't know of +anyone+ who relies on these
torture
> rituals for the purpose of choosing what items to purchase, other than the
> three borgs I mentioned. Could you elucidate? Aside from researchers or
> product development folk, whom do you know who +relies+ on the torture
> rituals?
Reserachers and manufacturers is who I was thinking of, you know, people
trying to find the truth.
Furthermore, whom do you know who claims that all amplifiers sound
> the same?
Nobody, but it is what many who disdain ABX claim the pro-ABXers say.
The audiophile market is a very small segment of the market place.
Why do you suppose that is?
> Some follow and others lead. Of those who lead, I dare say the ones I've
met
> have exemplary hearing and discerning taste.
How do you know without some sort of bias free tests?
I'm also quite sure that the mass
> market encompasses droves who couldn't hear differences between components
if
> their lives depended on it.
A guess. Is it possible that because there aer little or no differences in
sound quality that many audiophiles don't buy megabuck gear? As someone who
used to sell audio equipment, I can tell you that my expierience is, most
people seemed to want something to play music with and were unconcerned
beyond that.
If you are referring to the mass market then
> there's no argument from me. I agree, they don't hear the differences and
> everything most likely sounds the same to them.
Without some sort of objective criteria, how do you know if anything sounds
different from something else? Other than gross differences which are
easily discerned we have enough information to know that the types of
comaprisons done by the likes of Stereophile are pointless.
The same holds true for the
> hearing impaired, such as Goober and Krooshit.
>
Pointless name-calling noted.
> You +have+ seen the posts wherein they admit to their hearing limitations,
> right?
Most people's hearing is impaired. Anyone who has been to a concert and
came out with their ears ringing is hearing impaired.
Why would they think that their results should be global? That's my
> point. What's yours?
>
That people are people and there ears work pretty much the same.
> > Even
> > > funnier is their morbid mentor, Tommi Notsane, who places equalizers
> > before
> > > amps he compares so that they will - surprise - sound the same!
> >
> > Ilustrating that flat frequency response is what you need for hi fi.
>
> It is known that the act of measuring the temperature of water with a
> thermometer will affect the outcome of the test. Does it occur to you
that the
> insertion of an equalizer, which can induce artifacts such as ringing and
also
> affect the bandwidth, can adversely affect the comparison test?
That would depend on the type of EQ and if the person listening KNEW about
the EQ, wouldn't it?
For instance,
> if I take the output of a half-inch, 30ips analog mastering machine on
which
> the master being auditioned was recorded and send it to a high end power
amp,
> listen to it, and then insert an equalizer between the tape deck and amp,
I
> should expect no change or degradation of the signal?
The question is would it audible?
Are you fucking
> serious? It doesn't occur to you that the EQ will affect the test?
Puhleeeze.
>
You seem to be deliberately obtuse here, the use of the EQ in Tom's
comparisons is to find out if flattening FR will make something sound
identical to to something else that has flat FR.
If it does then we have a bit of useful information on what constitutes good
sound.
> I have one system in which the pre-amp and amp can pass video! A 1K
square
> wave passes through as a 1k +square+ wave. Can you name even +one+
equalizer
> that can do that? Remember that these devices have +analog+ inputs and
> outputs. This means that a digital EQ needs converters at input and
output
> which will bandwidth limit the signal. An analog EQ can't even compete
and
> achieves its job by using ringing. If you know of one that has that kind
of
> bandwidth, that can pass video, please let me know about it.
>
> And don't bother with the much abused argument concerning the bandwidth of
> human hearing when utilizing sine waves. Pure sine waves don't occur in
nature
> nor in acoustic music.
Therefore what? People can't hear them or they have no use in research?
Using sine waves to check human hearing is about as
> logical as using a hammer on your foot to test IQ.
To you. Apparently there is a large body of researchers who believe
otherwise.
There is a large body of
> research dealing with modulated transients and humans perceive them at a
far
> higher frequency than sine waves are perceived. If you doubt that and
think
> that all amps sound the same then that is your slice of heaven and you are
> quite welcome to it.
>
I don't think all amps sound the same, just the properly built ones. Some
sound different because they are tubed, some sound different because they
are designed to. Those that meet certain criteria sound indistinguishable
from others designed the same way.
> > > Then, of course, we can visit the dark side of the Kroo. Not sure Mr.
> > Schiz
> > > wants to go there just yet. Baby steps first. Too much shite in one
gulp
> > can
> > > be sickening in the extreme.
> > >
> > You seem to [sic] the one who would know.
>
> Yes, of course. I'm the one who busted his repugnant ass for forging the
email
> which described the loathsome and despicable actions which he fantasized.
Can
> you name one other person, anyone, who would post that filthy stuff about
their
> own son? Anyone? He's shit of the most refined sort. Don't you feel
even the
> least bit soiled in your attempts to rationalize and defend his actions?
> Criminy sakes.
>
> BTW, why are you called the bug eater? Do you really eat bugs?
>
George gave me that name. I'm not clear anymore as to why. It may be that
I made reference to a local car dealer who says if he can't sell you a car
he'll eat a bug. IOW it's just another one of his dehumanizing methods to
deal with people.
> LN
>
> --
> "For every logical sane thing you say, Arnie will come back with at least
one,
> and usually two or three stark-raving tangential, illogical, insane
> responses." mmg - psych
>
On opinion he gets to have.
If someone with no history of abuse asks a question I've not seen AK give
anything more than a useful answer. YMMV.
mikemckelvy
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>
mikemckelvy
S888Wheel
>Not all the evidence, but enough has been done without any unexpected
>results.
Still waiting for any of it here on RAO.
>
>Been done. You guys choose not to believe it. Your right to so, remains
>unchanged. You position as a head in the sand type also remains unchanged.
This is nonsense. I have asked for evidence, I have paid AESJ for evidence that
people on RAO said would provide proof, I have done google serches on every
cited paper. I have found nothing. this is not what one does when one is
putting their head in the proverbial sand.
S888Wheel
>> Scott wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >I did a google search on every single reference that delt with amps. No
>test
>> >results were to be found.
Bruce said
>
>> Merely listing bibliographic references for articles does not in any way
>> provide readers of RAO with specific details and/or quotations that might
>be
>> relevant from specific articles.
>
Mouse said
>
> Here is one, just for you mon pitou: SOTA non-transducing devices exhibit
>sonic
> signatures that have not been distinguished in 25 years of blind listening
>when
> used within specs.
This is a report of a test? I don't think so.
Bruce said
>
>> Further, most of the references listed
>come
>> from popular magazines such as Stereo Review rather than from peer-reviewed
>> academic or professional journals, and therefore can not be considered to
>be
>> any more objective than those from other audio magazines sold to the
>general
>> public.
Mouse said
>
> Post a single reference to any "general public" articles that showed
>otherwise
> IN A CONTROLLED SETTING (use and listening). A single one will do. [We
>have
> been asking this for years but in vain...]
Check Stereophile archives.
S888Wheel
>Date: 6/7/03 4:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ve4t45d...@corp.supernews.com>
Been there , done that. Got no evidence that way. I'm not going to make the
same mistake twice.
S888Wheel
>Or simply go to your local library like I did. Amazing places, libraries.
>The AES Journal papers are highly illuminating.
>
>
>
Where is your local library?
S888Wheel
>decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to determine subtle
>differnces.
It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think demonstrations of
it's ability to determine subtle differences seem few and far between. That
doesn't mean it isn't rue it just means that there isn't much data readily
available so it seems. ABX certaianly makes sense if it is done well. We have
seen a fine example from Howard of it being done far less than well. A good
tool in the hands of a hack or a person whose biases are blinding is no longer
a good tool. That is why I want to see the raw data and the full reports of how
tests were conducted. I have no interest in mistakenly giving creedence to
tests that are of a similar caliber to Howard's.
> It's been in use by Harman/JBL for many years under the
>supervison of Floyd Toole and the BBC for longer than that.
Yes and he has made some good arguements for his methods. And yet they have
failed to make speakers that I prefer. There is more than one way to skin a cat
an there is more than one way to evaluate one's work.
> It works,
>there's evidence aplenty.
It being ABX DBT's? It certainly should work. I don't know how much has been
done to prove it is the most sensitive test for every kind of audible
difference.
> If you really give a shit about knowing you can.
can what?
>To sit at your computer and whine that the evidence hasn't been posted here
>is childish.
You are entitled to your opinion but is it any more adult to make assertions on
news groups and then refuse to offer supportive evidence and then call those
who ask for such evidence childish?
> It is the standard for those who wish to get the best possible
>information.
I don't think that is true. I think SOTA methods are often propietary methods
used in real scientific research.
> Deny it if you wish, but don't expect to be treated as if you
>could possibly be swayed by facts, since you obviously don't care.
This is just a silly personal attack. Nothing has been denied. Many false
presumptions have been made by those making assertions without offering the
supportive evidence they claim to have and claim is readily available. This is
just another case of a false presumption. Claiming I obviously don't care is a
silly personal attack. Why spend so much time and effort arguing such
ridiculous assertions when instead you could easily just offer up the evidence
that you found so convincing?
>
>Nobody says you have to use ABX to enjoy your hi-fi. The only thing being
>said is that if you use it or rely on the evidence of previous ABX
>comparisons, you could probably enjoy your music for a lot less money.
>Explain to mw why that is bad?
>
Who said saving money is bad? All I am asking for is the evidence that supports
the assertions made about certain gear all sounding the same. How is this such
an outrageous request? How does one deduct that I am burying my head in the
sand when I ask for evidence that is claimed to exist and in the possession of
those making such assertions?
JBorg, Jr.
> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in audio for
> decades and no [one] has yet demonstrated a better way to determine subtle
> differnces. It's been in use by Harman/JBL for many years under the
> supervison of Floyd Toole and the BBC for longer than that. It works,
> there's evidence aplenty. If you really give a shit about knowing you can.
> To sit at your computer and whine that the evidence hasn't been posted here
> is childish. It is the standard for those who wish to get the best possible
> information. Deny it if you wish, but don't expect to be treated as if you
> could possibly be swayed by facts, since you obviously don't care.
>
> Nobody says you have to use ABX to enjoy your hi-fi. The only thing being
> said is that if you use it or rely on the evidence of previous ABX
> comparisons, you could probably enjoy your music for a lot less money.
> Explain to mw why that is bad?
What is/are the reason or specific protocols about ABX/DBT leading you
to believe that it is an effective way to discern subtle differences in
sounds ?
I think that it is rather presumptuous to have such a conviction without
knowing yourself why you believe in it.
Leon North
> "Leon North" <leon_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3EE1C905...@hotmail.com...
>
> > Begging your pardon, but I don't know of +anyone+ who relies on these
> torture
> > rituals for the purpose of choosing what items to purchase, other than the
> > three borgs I mentioned. Could you elucidate? Aside from researchers or
> > product development folk, whom do you know who +relies+ on the torture
> > rituals?
>
> Reserachers and manufacturers is who I was thinking of, you know, people
> trying to find the truth.
Close enough. That is my point.
> >Furthermore, whom do you know who claims that all amplifiers sound
> > the same?
>
> Nobody, but it is what many who disdain ABX claim the pro-ABXers say.
Hyperbole on my part but they do qualify it with "competently designed" or some
such. My problem with the concept is that I can perceive a difference. Ergo,
I'm not buying the sales pitch and would suggest that if two different
amplifiers that measure same can be distinguished from each other in a bias
controlled test then, perhaps, there are aspects of their performance that are
not being measured or understood. There have been multiple times in history
where the claim was made that all that can be known is known. Then, bang,
everything is turned on its head with some new knowledge. The other shoe won't
fall in our lifetimes and much, I believe, is yet to be discovered.
> The audiophile market is a very small segment of the market place.
>
> Why do you suppose that is?
Besides the pursuit of excellence being expensive as hell?
> > Some follow and others lead. Of those who lead, I dare say the ones I've
> met
> > have exemplary hearing and discerning taste.
>
> How do you know without some sort of bias free tests?
Because in many instances there were such tests.
> >I'm also quite sure that the mass market encompasses droves who couldn't
> hear differences between components if their lives depended on it.
>
> A guess. Is it possible that because there aer little or no differences in
> sound quality that many audiophiles don't buy megabuck gear?
I'm more inclined to think that it is due to lack of experience in what to
listen for that would constitute these differences along with a lack of
discretionary income. The word audiophile means 'one who likes audio'. You
don't have to be wealthy to like audio but having a shit load of money does
give one the opportunity to find out just how much they like it. Show me a
wealthy audiophile who doesn't have a significant amount of money tied up in
their system. That could be very difficult to do.
> As someone who
> used to sell audio equipment, I can tell you that my expierience is, most
> people seemed to want something to play music with and were unconcerned
> beyond that.
You make my point concerning the mass market. Many don't care enough to pursue
excellence. They would just like the stuff to play music. I remember a
neurosurgeon friend, many years ago, who had the means and desire to have an
audiophile dream system. His wife had a different agenda. The result was that
their sitting room/parlor ended up being fitted with small bookshelf speakers
hidden behind chairs and the electronics stashed in a cabinet, not visible.
Not at all what I would prefer but she was satisfied with music emanating from
somewhere not seen and he diplomatically chose to satisfy her.
> >If you are referring to the mass market then
> > there's no argument from me. I agree, they don't hear the differences and
> > everything most likely sounds the same to them.
>
> Without some sort of objective criteria, how do you know if anything sounds
> different from something else?
Very much the same way that I can perceive the difference between a Kia and
Carrera. I don't need a scientific exercise to make the determination
> > The same holds true for the
> > hearing impaired, such as Goober and Krooshit.
> >
> Pointless name-calling noted.
Pointless to you, maybe, but not to me.
> > You +have+ seen the posts wherein they admit to their hearing limitations,
> right?
>
> Most people's hearing is impaired.
Really? How sad.
> Anyone who has been to a concert and
> came out with their ears ringing is hearing impaired.
Are you digressing into oranges and apples?
> > Why would they think that their results should be global? That's my
> > point. What's yours?
>
> That people are people and there ears work pretty much the same.
As do Kias and Porsches and dump trucks and Ferraris and bicycles and trains.
My hearing and listening experience won't be enlightened by hack tyros who are
incapable of perceiving what +I+ perceive nor would I be too quick to impugn
the rest of the human race because ears all "work pretty much the same" (note
that the qualifier you employ is a very broad brush). BTW, women all have
pretty much the same aspects. Would you like me to fix you up? They're all
pretty much the same, right? If you swing the other way then maybe I can
interest you in a date with Fat Bastard.
> > Does it occur to you that the
> > insertion of an equalizer, which can induce artifacts such as ringing and
> also
> > affect the bandwidth, can adversely affect the comparison test?
>
> That would depend on the type of EQ and if the person listening KNEW about
> the EQ, wouldn't it?
Let's assume that they don't know. If the EQ used in the test obviates the
advantages of an amp then 'sameness' wins out. What exactly is the point of
inserting an EQ in front of one amp but not the other or even inserting any EQ
at all? Why skew the test in such a fashion?
> > For instance,
> > if I take the output of a half-inch, 30ips analog mastering machine on
> which
> > the master being auditioned was recorded and send it to a high end power
> amp,
> > listen to it, and then insert an equalizer between the tape deck and amp,
> > should expect no change or degradation of the signal?
>
> The question is would it [sic] audible?
To some, yes, to others, no.
> > Are you fucking serious? It doesn't occur to you that the EQ will affect
> the test? Puhleeeze.
>
> You seem to be deliberately obtuse here,
Not at all. The concept is very clear. Test both amps with +exactly+ the same
signal source and keep a minimum signal path. What's obtuse about that. Do
you warm up the thermometer before taking your temperature?
> the use of the EQ in Tom's comparisons is to find out if flattening FR will
> make something sound identical to to something else that has flat FR.
Packing your ears with cotton do the same thing. Consider the possibility that
the equalizer may not be anywhere as good as the amp it is preceding in the
signal path. Why handicap the amp with a putatively crappy EQ? Is TN using a
1/3 octave graphic? Exactly +what+ is the model of this transparent piece of
fantasy? That would tell much.
> If it does then we have a bit of useful information on what constitutes good
> sound.
Whoa. Big leap there. Maybe +you+ would find it useful but +I+ sure
wouldn't. If you need to put an equalizer in front of a high end amp to
establish what constitutes 'good sound' then we're from two different
universes. Read what you just wrote. Does it still make sense to you? I hope
not.
> > And don't bother with the much abused argument concerning the bandwidth of
> > human hearing when utilizing sine waves. Pure sine waves don't occur in
> nature
> > nor in acoustic music.
>
> Therefore what? People can't hear them or they have no use in research?
Meaning that they are of little use in the context of human bandwidth
perception of reproduced music.
> > Using sine waves to check human hearing is about as
> > logical as using a hammer on your foot to test IQ.
>
> To you. Apparently there is a large body of researchers who believe
> otherwise.
There is a 'large body of researchers' for every topic that is not fully
understood. That would be an ad populem fallacy and meaningless in this
conversation. I can show you a large group of 'researchers' experimenting with
drinking their own urine, too. Would you do that? Are you saying that you are
disinterested in learning more because a 'large body of researchers' think this
is the way it should be done? Cool.
<snippity snip>
> If someone with no history of abuse asks a question I've not seen AK give
> anything more than a useful answer. YMMV.
Odd that you claim one thing and then say 'your mileage may vary'. Which is
it, does he always give useful answers or is there some chance of KrooAbuse?
Alright, here you go, there is a large body of researchers who can prove you
wrong. Just kidding, but, I don't even need to peruse Google for an example.
Granted, maybe +you+ haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't
happened. A fellow named Carl got liberally slimed by the Detroit Turd Burglar
just recently. The guy even made an effort to be polite to S-f-B after the
sliming but Turdy would have none of it. How about his rudeness to Chris
Johnson? Chris is patient as a saint and even +gave+ the retard a computer and
helped him port his fucked up software to the Mac platform. Turdy mega-slimed
Chris without Chris firing a shot. Hell, you don't even have to post to get
slimed by that whack job. I've seen posts where he has dropped slimy little
turdletts all over somebody's rep and that would be somebody the retard has
+never+ met nor communicated with. You need to do a bit of research before you
defend that idiot.
<snip>
In your response to my query regarding the bug eater thing you attributed it to
GM and made this comment:
"IOW it's just another one of his dehumanizing methods to deal with people."
I don't want to put too fine a point on this but it seems obvious that a person
can eat bugs and still be a human. So I wouldn't classify that comment as
dehumanizing. Calling a person a sockpuppet is most definitely dehumanizing
them. Now who do suppose throws that pejorative around the most? I'd say it's
a tie between S-f-B and Goober. They're responsible for the preponderance of
dehumanizing slime jobs while getting support from sociopathic anonymice.
Turdy will use it when somebody of merit disagrees with him. I've seen him do
it to experienced, award winning and very talented engineers and I've seen him
taken to task for it. He's just so abominably lazy and arrogant that he won't
even do a modicum of research to find out whom he's attacking.
The point of interest to me is that this NG is about +opinion+. If you (or
anybody) should find that an item enhances your enjoyment then it is +your+
opinion and being attacked by a pseudo science whack-job is inappropriate.
Take note that none of the torture ritual proponents has bona fides as a
professional scientist. Then take note of the fact that many who disagree with
them are professional scientists. The argument, as I see it, is not about the
usefulness of DBTs (and I've done hundreds of them) but about the +procedure+
that these inept clowns utilize to push their agenda. Goober just pushes the
same button over and over and Turdy runs everything through sound cards. He
even claims that you can audition amplifiers on his little site of horrors!
Hello?
This is not the forum for scientific rigor. It is a forum intended, by its
charter, for opinions and shooting the shit about our toys. If you tell me
that you just shoved marshmallows in your speaker ports and it sounds fantastic
then I'll just say, "Cool". I rather doubt that I'd duplicate your practice
but I wouldn't demand that you do a proctored torture ritual with my
crippleware and call you names or insult you. Nor would I call you Clyde,
pinhead, jerk, tweako-freako, etc. Nor would I fabricate a vile email
describing sodomy and golden showers with my deceased son and blame it on those
with whom I disagreed. OTOH, we are periodically blessed with the presence of
professionals. The trick is to recognize them when they post. Turdy sees
their presence as a territorial invasion and the snot machine fires up.
I attended a party yesterday and one of the people there (the principal buyer
for a high end chain store) has a hi-fi comprised of all one brand. It is
expensive stuff and he asked me if he should purchase a duplicate amp and bi
wire the system. I told him the same thing I'd tell anyone here. If it makes
you happy then do it. Just do it. If you recommend it to somebody else and
they buy it and are happy with it then that's just peachy. Great for the
economy, too.
There are posters on this NG who look for a complete system for under a couple
of hundred bucks and there some very wealthy posters who have systems costing
more than some houses. I could live nicely on the interest generated by the
money one poster here has spent on his toys. Who gives a flying donut hole?
It's +your+ business what you chose to own and if you want to voice an opinion
then that's just great. Turdy can't afford the high end stuff but fancies
himself an expert, much the same as Goober does. They both have lots to say
about stuff they've never experienced and they both play the dehumanizing card
in an eye blink. Goober claimed to desire wreaking havoc, pain and anguish on
those who would own or recommend anything he doesn't approve. What kind of
whacked out shit is that? Turdy slimes just about anything and will trip over
his own feet in the process. Have you ever seen posts of his where he's lost
track of whose post he's attacking and ended up arguing with himself? The
first time I saw that I almost shit myself laughing. Much of what he posts is
a lie unless it's a cut and paste from an honest source.
'Twere I you, I'd be concerned about getting a bad rep by association. Turdy
is a sociopathic lunatic who postures in arrogant ignorance to the point he's
taken as a joke. I'm flabbergasted that any sane human would defend his
shitfulness.
Sorry about all the bandwidth, but you did ask.
Regardz,
LN
--
"I am just a hack writer and fabricator of false information for a small-stream
audio magazine." - H. Ferstler - 2003
Arny Krueger
>>
>>> This argument between those that favor subjective evaluation and
>>> those that are opposed to it and promote ABX testing as a means of
>>> "converting" others to their anti-preference, anti-subjective
>>> opinion biases, has been going on for years and years.
>> Wrong that ABX is anti-subjective testing. ABX is a subjective
>> listening test technique, so people who favor ABX can't possibly be
>> opposed to subjective testing. Richman, your statement makes as
>> much sense as saying that people who favor drinking dark beer are
>> opposed to it.
> KIrueger, you've obviously chosen to substitute the words
> "anti-subjective testing" - which are yours - from what I actually
> wrote, which was "aniti-subjective opinion" - a quite different set
> of 2 words with a different meaning.
Richman, I was responding to your words "subjective evaluation". You used
those words, didn't you?
I deconstructed the later statement (your paragraph is a poorly-written
run-on) : "...promote ABX testing as a means of > "converting" others to
their anti-preference, anti-subjective opinion biases, has been going on
for years and years." later on.
> So Krueger, your very
> transparent attempt to change what I wrote essentially means you're
> arguing with yourself and calling your *own* words nonsensical, not
> mine.
Deceptions noted. Richman deceptively wraped a number of complete statements
into a gigantic, complex run-on sentence. Then, when I try to rebut one of
the statements in his run-on sentence, he tries to distract people by
focusing attention on other statements in the same run-on sentence.
> LOL!
>
>
>
>>
>> Wrong that ABX is anti-preference. While considerable press has been
>> given to ABX tests that have negative outcomes, it is also true that
>> some audio products sound different in ABX tests. When audio
>> products sound different in ABX tests, then ABX becomes very
>> pro-preference.
>>
>>> Nobody is going to change their minds, quite obviously.
>>
>> Quite obviously ABX is a means for getting people to change their
>> minds from believing that everything sounds different to a more
>> logical situation where they believe that some things sound
>> different, and some things don't.
>>
>>
>
> While that might be the intention, it seems fairly clear that aside
> from a few pro-ABX-testing proponents here, there has been little
> evidence that any "conversions" of those who favor subjective
> evaluations and individual preferences has taken place.
>
>
>>> And the claims that "all the
>>> evidence is in" have also been made for years, with little, by way
>>> of specificity or actual details of experiments posted ot this
>>> newsgroup.
>>
>> As if RAO is the measure of anything in this world that is important.
>>
>
> Apparently, the huge amount of verbiage spilled on RAO by the pro-ABX
> proponents (all 3 or 4 of them) on RAO suggests that it is important
> to those with a pro-ABX testing agenda. How else to explain the
> ongoing efforts they have made here for many years?
>
> When trying to convince people that cited test results are valid, it
> would be logical to post some of those results where the targeted
> population is reading. Therefore the erection of a strawman argument
> above as to the scientific importance of RAO when it comes to
> offering any semblance of proof for all the claims - is
> unfortunately, just another attempt to avoid providing any data to
> those that have asked for it on RAO.
>
>
>
>>> If the argument is being made here, then I think the onus
>>> is on those making these claims to post the details HERE if they
>>> expect people reading RAO to make an objective determination as to
>>> who the data should be interpreted.
>>
>> It's simpler than that. Just go to www.pcabx.com and listen for
>> yourself.
>>
>
> As if that were the credible equivalent of scientific yournal articles
> published after peer review by an impartial and objective editorial
> board of an academic or professional audio journal. Hardly the case!
>
>
>
>>> And no, the hostility is not, IMHO, directed at ABX or other forms
>>> of double blind testing. It's elicited by the ad hominem attacks,
>>> name-calling, slanderous comments and attack threads generated by
>>> those who oppose individual preferences and subjective evaluations.
>>
>> Both of these claims, that ABX opposes individual preferences and
>> that ABX opposes subjective evaluations have been just been
>> deconstructed.
>>
>
> There is no evidence presented above that would support this claim.
> In point of fact, the words "anti-subjective-testing" have been
> substituted for the words I wrote, and I quote, "anti-preference,
> anti-subjective opinion" in a deliberate attempt to give Krueger an
> opportunity to argue against a claim that was not made by me.
>
>
>
>
>> So you're going to make up a new song to sing, Richman.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> It seems your argument, based on deliberate distortion and
> misrepresentation of what I actually said, requires you to start
> another volume of revisionist posting, Krueger.
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
Arny Krueger
>> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in
>> audio for decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to
>
> It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think
> demonstrations of it's ability to determine subtle differences seem
> few and far between.
OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than CD, and
you think that all digital equalizers suck.
So what?
>That doesn't mean it isn't rue it just means
> that there isn't much data readily available so it seems.
ABX is rue. Snake oil artists rue the day ABX was invented. So do their
dupes. Someplace in through there I think we've got your number, sockpuppet
:Wheel".
> ABX certainly makes sense if it is done well.
Name something worthwhile that makes sense if done shoddily.
OK, so much for that example of damning with faint praise, straw man, and
maybe a touch of red herring. Got any more debating trade tricks to play,
sockpuppet "Wheel"?
> We have seen a fine
> example from Howard of it being done far less than well.
Well duhh. I saw a guy drive his car into a tree over the weekend. With your
logic sockpuppet "Wheel" we ought to ban cars.
> A good tool
> in the hands of a hack or a person whose biases are blinding is no
> longer a good tool.
Well duhh, mark two.
> That is why I want to see the raw data and the
> full reports of how tests were conducted.
Why not get them the old fashioned way, sockpuppet "Wheel"? You know, do
some work.
>I have no interest in
> mistakenly giving credence to tests that are of a similar caliber to
> Howard's.
Who gives credence to posts that are a similar caliber to yours, sockpuppet
"Wheel". I just do this for the exercise it gives my fingers and the time it
passes while I do another virus scan on a client PC.
>> It's been in use by Harman/JBL for many years under the
>> supervision of Floyd Toole and the BBC for longer than that.
> Yes and he has made some good arguments for his methods. And yet
> they have failed to make speakers that I prefer.
Ford also uses DBTs to evaluate carsound systems, and the components that go
into them. Ford also makes their own windshields via a subsidiary. I don't
prefer Ford cars, so I think I'll never buy a car with a windshield again.
> There is more than
> one way to skin a cat an there is more than one way to evaluate one's
> work.
Well yes, there is ABX, ABC/hr, and then there is the rotten old totally
invalid old-fashioned sighted evaluation. Which one do RAO trolls like
sockpuppet "Wheel" prefer? Why, its the nasty sighted evaluation, 10:1!
>> It works,
>> there's evidence aplenty.
> It being ABX DBT's? It certainly should work.
It would work if you gave it a chance, sockupppet "Wheel", but you don't get
your hands dirty touching nasty old audio equipment much any more, now do
you?
>I don't know how much
> has been done to prove it is the most sensitive test for every kind
> of audible difference.
You don't know because you intentionally keep yourself as ignorant as you
can, sockpuppet "Wheel".
>> If you really give a shit about knowing you can.
>
> can what?
Learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. Act like you finally bought a
clue. Stuff like that, sockpuppet "Wheel".
>> To sit at your computer and whine that the evidence hasn't been
>> posted here is childish.
> You are entitled to your opinion but is it any more adult to make
> assertions on news groups and then refuse to offer supportive
> evidence and then call those who ask for such evidence childish?
You can all the supportive evidence you want sockpuppet "Wheel". Just get
your hands dirty with some of that nasty old audio stuff. You know there is
life away from the keyboard.
>> It is the standard for those who wish to get the best possible
>> information.
> I don't think that is true.
OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than CD, and
you think that all digital equalizers suck.
What you think is true or not true is obviously irrelevant in the 21st
century, sockpuppet "Wheel". No wonder you work so hard to conceal your true
legal identity. Who would want to be known as being as stupid and lazy as
your online persona?
> I think SOTA methods are often proprietary
> methods used in real scientific research.
That's another debating trade trick - it's the "latest scientific
unpublished research may show..." routine.
>> Deny it if you wish, but don't expect to be treated as if you
>> could possibly be swayed by facts, since you obviously don't care.
> This is just a silly personal attack. Nothing has been denied.
Sure sockpuppet "Wheel" I've shown you're in denial six different ways since
Sunday, and its only Monday.
> Many
> false presumptions have been made by those making assertions without
> offering the supportive evidence they claim to have and claim is
> readily available.
Many people have concealed the fact that they are in denial by making up
more and more ridiculous questions to ask. By demanding the impossible and
denying the possible, they protect their prejudices and dreams from
scrutiny.
> This is just another case of a false presumption.
You've certainly played the false presumption card enough in this post,
sockpuppet "Wheel".
> Claiming I obviously don't care is a silly personal attack.
I think so too. It's clear that you do care, sockpuppet "Wheel". You care
about deceiving people just like you deceive yourself, and you like the
attention you get by saying stupid things.
Why spend
> so much time and effort arguing such ridiculous assertions when
> instead you could easily just offer up the evidence that you found so
> convincing?
Do your own homework, sockpuppet "Wheel". You might want to buy a clue along
the way.
>> Nobody says you have to use ABX to enjoy your hi-fi. The only thing
>> being said is that if you use it or rely on the evidence of previous
>> ABX comparisons, you could probably enjoy your music for a lot less
>> money. Explain to mw why that is bad?
> Who said saving money is bad? All I am asking for is the evidence
> that supports the assertions made about certain gear all sounding the
> same.
Straw man argument since nobody is saying that all gear sounds the same.
Some gear does, some gear doesn't. If we show you two pieces that are
indistinguishable, you just go into your little denial shtick, and try to
change the topic.
>How is this such an outrageous request?
What's outrageous is the really weird stuff you believe, sockpuppet "Wheel"
Like the fact that
you think vinyl always sounds better than CD, and you think that all digital
equalizers suck.
> How does one deduct
> that I am burying my head in the sand when I ask for evidence that is
> claimed to exist and in the possession of those making such
> assertions?
It's because of all the obvious garbage that you do believe, sockpuppet
"Wheel".
S888Wheel
>>> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in
>>> audio for decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to
>>> determine subtle differences.
I said
>
>> It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think
>> demonstrations of it's ability to determine subtle differences seem
>> few and far between.
Arny said
>
>OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than CD, and
>you think that all digital equalizers suck.
>
Arny clearly has to misrepresent the facts to make persoanal attacks. Arny,
didn't your mother tell you it was wrong to lie?
Arny said
>
>So what?
>
You burn another straw man, so what?
I said
>
>>That doesn't mean it isn't rue it just means
>> that there isn't much data readily available so it seems.
>
Arny said
>
>ABX is rue. Snake oil artists rue the day ABX was invented. So do their
>dupes. Someplace in through there I think we've got your number, sockpuppet
>:Wheel".
Wow another major intelectual victory for Arny. He found a typo. Arny you are
quite the characture.
I said
>
>> ABX certainly makes sense if it is done well.
>
Arny said
>
>Name something worthwhile that makes sense if done shoddily.
Sex, eating, sports and other forms of exercise, elections,criminal justice,
etc.
Arny said
>
>OK, so much for that example of damning with faint praise, straw man, and
>maybe a touch of red herring. Got any more debating trade tricks to play,
>sockpuppet "Wheel"?
Nothing like tossing a bunch of catch phrases at a situation when there is
nothing to say of relevance.
I said
>
>> We have seen a fine
>> example from Howard of it being done far less than well.
Arny said
>
>
>Well duhh. I saw a guy drive his car into a tree over the weekend. With your
>logic sockpuppet "Wheel" we ought to ban cars.
Straw man arguement. I never suggested banning ABX DBTs did I?
I said
>
>> A good tool
>> in the hands of a hack or a person whose biases are blinding is no
>> longer a good tool.
Arny said
>
>Well duhh, mark two.
Howard didn't seem to get it so maybe you should e mail him a "duhh, mark two."
What is a duhh mark two? Is that a newer version of duh?
I said
>
>> That is why I want to see the raw data and the
>> full reports of how tests were conducted.
>
Arny said
>
>Why not get them the old fashioned way, sockpuppet "Wheel"? You know, do
>some work.
Duh. Arny do you understand the value of looking at legitimate research data or
not? Do you think everyone who wants to learn about something has to go do the
research themsleves? That would be rather idiotic.
I said
>
>>I have no interest in
>> mistakenly giving credence to tests that are of a similar caliber to
>> Howard's.
Arny said
>
>
>Who gives credence to posts that are a similar caliber to yours, sockpuppet
>"Wheel".
Irrelevant personal attack noted. Lack of any real contnet also noted.
Arny said
> I just do this for the exercise it gives my fingers and the time it
>passes while I do another virus scan on a client PC.
>
Do you have a point? Or are you just trying to rationalize your existance on
usenet? Did I even ask for you to cite the existance of a life of your own
outside of usenet?
Mike said
>
>>> It's been in use by Harman/JBL for many years under the
>>> supervision of Floyd Toole and the BBC for longer than that.
I said
>
>> Yes and he has made some good arguments for his methods. And yet
>> they have failed to make speakers that I prefer.
>
Arny said
>
>Ford also uses DBTs to evaluate carsound systems, and the components that go
>into them. Ford also makes their own windshields via a subsidiary. I don't
>prefer Ford cars, so I think I'll never buy a car with a windshield again.
Failed logic noted.
I said
>
>> There is more than
>> one way to skin a cat an there is more than one way to evaluate one's
>> work.
Arny said
>
>
>Well yes, there is ABX, ABC/hr, and then there is the rotten old totally
>invalid old-fashioned sighted evaluation. Which one do RAO trolls like
>sockpuppet "Wheel" prefer? Why, its the nasty sighted evaluation, 10:1!
Well, lets see, Martin Logan uses the rotton version, so does Sound Lab. I
guess I prefer speakers evaluated by the manufacturers using the rotton
version. Of course I am not stupid enough to make such a gross mistake of
misaplication of cause and effect. I suppose you believe that both these
maufacturers make inherently inferior speakers due to their sighted evaluation
proccess?
Mike said
>
>>> It works,
>>> there's evidence aplenty.
>
I said
>
>> It being ABX DBT's? It certainly should work.
>
Arny said
>
>It would work if you gave it a chance, sockupppet "Wheel",
Do you mean it doesn't work until i give it a chance? What a burden I carry.
What do you mean give it a chance? Do you mean like give peace a chance? What
are you trying to say Arny?
Arny said
> but you don't get
>your hands dirty touching nasty old audio equipment much any more, now do
>you?
>
No. I keep my equipment clean. Don't you?
I said
>
>>I don't know how much
>> has been done to prove it is the most sensitive test for every kind
>> of audible difference.
>
Arny said
>
>You don't know because you intentionally keep yourself as ignorant as you
>can, sockpuppet "Wheel".
Bullshit. but maybe you can enlighten us Arny. Can you cite scientific research
on the sensitivity of ABX DBTs in audio? That would be interesting.
Mike said
>
>>> If you really give a shit about knowing you can.
>>
I said
>
>> can what?
>
Arny said
>
>Learn to walk and chew gum at the same time. Act like you finally bought a
>clue. Stuff like that, sockpuppet "Wheel".
>
Really? This is what Mike meant? so those who don't give a shit about audio
can't even walk and chew gum at the same time? Arny, at least keep your
personal attacks remotely logical.
Mike said
>
>>> To sit at your computer and whine that the evidence hasn't been
>>> posted here is childish.
I said
>
>> You are entitled to your opinion but is it any more adult to make
>> assertions on news groups and then refuse to offer supportive
>> evidence and then call those who ask for such evidence childish?
Arny said
>
>You can all the supportive evidence you want sockpuppet "Wheel". Just get
>your hands dirty with some of that nasty old audio stuff. You know there is
>life away from the keyboard.
Life away from the keyboard? arny how many posts have you made over the years
on usenet compared to me? This is like O.J. lecturing others on morals.
Mike said
>
>>> It is the standard for those who wish to get the best possible
>>> information.
I said
>
>> I don't think that is true.
>
Arny said
>
>OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than CD, and
>you think that all digital equalizers suck.
>
Wow, I can smell the burning straw from here. Arny try starting with the truth
then make sure it is relevant and then base a logical argument on that. Give it
a try some day.
Arny said
>
>What you think is true or not true is obviously irrelevant in the 21st
>century, sockpuppet "Wheel".
arny you are just offering up more evidence of your ignorance. but that is
nothing new.
Arny said
> No wonder you work so hard to conceal your true
>legal identity.
It is not hard work at all Arny.
Arny said
>ceal your true
>legal identity. Who would want to be known as being as stupid and lazy as
>your online persona?
Nobody whose opinion I respect has made any such claims about me on RAO.
Irrelevant, unsupported personal attack noted. Lack of relevant audio content
noted.
I said
>
>> I think SOTA methods are often proprietary
>> methods used in real scientific research.
>
Arny said
>
>That's another debating trade trick - it's the "latest scientific
>unpublished research may show..." routine.
>
No Arny, It is an opinion based on things JJ has said about DBTs. You know, the
guy who did it professionally?
Mike said
>
>>> Deny it if you wish, but don't expect to be treated as if you
>>> could possibly be swayed by facts, since you obviously don't care.
>
I said
>
>> This is just a silly personal attack. Nothing has been denied.
rny said
>
>Sure sockpuppet "Wheel" I've shown you're in denial six different ways since
>Sunday, and its only Monday.
>
No Arny, you have only burned several straw men to the ground and made several
irrational personal attacks. Well done!
I said
>
>> Many
>> false presumptions have been made by those making assertions without
>> offering the supportive evidence they claim to have and claim is
>> readily available.
Arny said
>
>Many people have concealed the fact that they are in denial by making up
>more and more ridiculous questions to ask. By demanding the impossible and
>denying the possible, they protect their prejudices and dreams from
>scrutiny.
More personal attacks and burning straw men. You aren't even attempting to
connect the rhetoric to the topic anymore.
I said
>
>> This is just another case of a false presumption.
Arny said
>
>You've certainly played the false presumption card enough in this post,
>sockpuppet "Wheel"
In your burning straw men only. Your misrepresntations of what i have said and
what i think are hardly evidence of any presumptions on my part. they only lay
out your dishonest debate tactics for everyone to see.
I said
>
>> Claiming I obviously don't care is a silly personal attack.
Arny said
>
>I think so too. It's clear that you do care, sockpuppet "Wheel". You care
>about deceiving people just like you deceive yourself, and you like the
>attention you get by saying stupid things.
>
More irrational, unsupported personal attacks.
I said
>
> Why spend
>> so much time and effort arguing such ridiculous assertions when
>> instead you could easily just offer up the evidence that you found so
>> convincing?
>
Arny said
>
>
>Do your own homework, sockpuppet "Wheel". You might want to buy a clue along
>the way.
personal attack noted. Lack of evidence also noted. talk is cheap.
Mike said
>
>>> Nobody says you have to use ABX to enjoy your hi-fi. The only thing
>>> being said is that if you use it or rely on the evidence of previous
>>> ABX comparisons, you could probably enjoy your music for a lot less
>>> money. Explain to mw why that is bad?
I said
>
>> Who said saving money is bad? All I am asking for is the evidence
>> that supports the assertions made about certain gear all sounding the
>> same.
Arny said
>
>
>Straw man argument since nobody is saying that all gear sounds the same.
>Some gear does, some gear doesn't. If we show you two pieces that are
>indistinguishable, you just go into your little denial shtick, and try to
>change the topic.
LOL your claim that i made a straw man arguement is a straw man arguement. how
ironic is that? I didn't say "all gear sounds the same" I said "certain gear."
I said
>
>>How is this such an outrageous request?
>
Arny said
>
>What's outrageous is the really weird stuff you believe, sockpuppet "Wheel"
Here come the lies....
Arny said
>Like the fact that
>you think vinyl always sounds better than CD,
Lie number one.
Arny said
> and you think that all digital
>equalizers suck.
Lie number two.
I said
>
>> How does one deduct
>> that I am burying my head in the sand when I ask for evidence that is
>> claimed to exist and in the possession of those making such
>> assertions?
>
Arny said
>
>It's because of all the obvious garbage that you do believe, sockpuppet
>"Wheel".
Keep on slayin those windmills Arny. When you get a grip on reality get back to
us.
George M. Middius
S888Wheel said to Shit-for-Brains:
> didn't your mother tell you it was wrong to lie?
Arnii assumed she was lying.
Arny Krueger
> Mike said
>
>>>> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in
>>>> audio for decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to
>>>> determine subtle differences.
>
> I said
>
>>
>>> It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think
>>> demonstrations of it's ability to determine subtle differences seem
>>> few and far between.
>
> Arny said
>
>>
>> OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than
>> CD, and you think that all digital equalizers suck.
>>
>
> Arny clearly has to misrepresent the facts to make persoanal attacks.
What's a "Persoanal" sockpuppet Wheel? Maybe you need to team up with
sockpuppet North and at least learn how to spell.
> Arny, didn't your mother tell you it was wrong to lie?
OK so you don't take any responsibility for your past statements, sockpuppet
"Wheel". That sorta comes with being afraid of your own name, doesn't it?
When you get a clue sockpuppet "Wheel", why don't you make a public
announcement and start posting here again.
dave weil
wrote:
>"S888Wheel" <s888...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030609142712...@mb-m29.aol.com
>> Mike said
>>
>>>>> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in
>>>>> audio for decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to
>>>>> determine subtle differences.
>>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think
>>>> demonstrations of it's ability to determine subtle differences seem
>>>> few and far between.
>>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than
>>> CD, and you think that all digital equalizers suck.
>>>
>>
>> Arny clearly has to misrepresent the facts to make persoanal attacks.
>
>What's a "Persoanal" sockpuppet Wheel? Maybe you need to team up with
>sockpuppet North and at least learn how to spell.
You first, Arnold. after all, you've misspelled some things just today
as well. Or would this require "accoutability"?
LOL!
Then, you might address the problem with grammar that you seem to
have, my little sweetheart.
S888Wheel
>>
>>>>> I'm defending no one. It's the fact that ABX has been around in
>>>>> audio for decades and no has yet demonstrated a better way to
>>>>> determine subtle differences.
>>
>
>> I said
>>
>>>
>>>> It is a fact that it has been around for decades. I think
>>>> demonstrations of it's ability to determine subtle differences seem
>>>> few and far between.
>>
>
>> Arny said
>>
>>>
>>> OK, and sockpuppet "Wheel" you think vinyl always sounds better than
>>> CD, and you think that all digital equalizers suck.
>>>
I said
>
>> Arny clearly has to misrepresent the facts to make persoanal attacks.
>
Arny said
>
>What's a "Persoanal" sockpuppet Wheel? Maybe you need to team up with
>sockpuppet North and at least learn how to spell.
Arny finds victory in yet another typo. What a characture. Note he doesn't
respond to the content of the post which points out his misrepresentation of
what I said.
I said
>
>> Arny, didn't your mother tell you it was wrong to lie?
>
Arny said
>
>OK so you don't take any responsibility for your past statements, sockpuppet
>"Wheel".
I take responsibility for them. I don't take responsibility for your lies. You
lied about what I said.
Arny said
> That sorta comes with being afraid of your own name, doesn't it?
Another personal attacked premised on a lie.Lack of audio content noted.
>
>When you get a clue sockpuppet "Wheel", why don't you make a public
>announcement and start posting here again.
Personal attacks noted. Lack of any relevant content noted. Lies about me and
my words noted.