[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.


You certainly do comparative listening.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 12:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.

You certainly do comparative listening.

*Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.

I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.
According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you, unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On May 11, 11:03 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
informal peer review.

As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
this statement is irrelevant in the [context] of _my_
experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,
which is considerable [compared] with that of blind-test
advocate ScottW, which is zero.

The fact that a publication is not formally peer-reviewed is
not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not. And as I said, the test methodology we
used for some of the tests in which I was involved was
praised by a recognized authority in the field.

But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lip****z has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.

I have no familiarity with that.

I don't see why not. Stanley's letter was published in
Stereophile. Are you suggesting that if you don't
take the time to read something, it does not exist,
Mr. Krueger?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 1:41*pm, ScottW wrote:

We've got enough general confusion.

Define "we".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 2:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW wrote:





On May 11, 12:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.

You certainly do comparative listening.

*Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.

I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.
According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you, unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.

It is odd, isn't it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 23:44, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 12:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 12:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.

You certainly do comparative listening.

*Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.

I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.

*No really. I object to reviews that always find wonder
where there is none.

According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you,

*Now you got it. S'phile is nothing to me. *All I've ever said is
I would those BS pontifications a bit more credible if they
had some DBT proof with 'em.
Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
corruption wrapped around 'em. *I can find less biased
opinions elsewhere so I have no need.

unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.

*I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
share yours, Nanny?


no, you insist that stereophile write DBT reviews.
You are not insisting I share your opinion,
nor do I insist you share mine,.
I only point out the fallacies and inconsistencies of yours.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 23:44, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 12:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 12:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.

You certainly do comparative listening.

*Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.

I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.

*No really. I object to reviews that always find wonder
where there is none.

According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you,

*Now you got it. S'phile is nothing to me. *All I've ever said is
I would those BS pontifications a bit more credible if they
had some DBT proof with 'em.
Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
corruption wrapped around 'em. *I can find less biased
opinions elsewhere so I have no need.

unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.

*I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
share yours, Nanny?

ScottW-


has nothing to do with your or my opinions.
it has to do with your selected role as Self Proclaimed
Protector of The Audio Consumer

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Another fat one floats across the plate.

Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position

You're an idiot and you don't care.

for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies

A policy to continually repeat the same discredited "opinions" is
self-defeating.

in it, and have a riproaring good time argument[sic] with yourself.

BARKBARKBARK! YAPYAPYAP! WOOF! BARK! GROWL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 10:44*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 12:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 12:00*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW wrote:

On May 11, 11:05*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-

So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?

*I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.

You certainly do comparative listening.

*Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.

I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.

*No really. I object to reviews that always find wonder
where there is none.

According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you,

*Now you got it. S'phile is nothing to me. *All I've ever said is
I would those BS pontifications a bit more credible if they
had some DBT proof with 'em.

Like your opinions have no proof to 'em.

Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
corruption wrapped around 'em. *I can find less biased
opinions elsewhere so I have no need.

But those opinions have no value to 'em as you're gonna buy your stuff
without hearing 'em.

unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.

*I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
share yours, Nanny?

Clyde is not telling other people what they need to do. Clyde lets 'em
decide for themslves.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 11:23*pm, ScottW wrote:

Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
in it, and have a riproaring good time argument with yourself.

Sounds like a dog chasing its tail. I hear they have a good time with
'em. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 11:29*pm, ScottW wrote:

has nothing to do with your or my opinions.
it has to do with your selected role as Self Proclaimed
Protector of The Audio Consumer

*LoL.... That would be your opinion of my opinion.

Duh.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On May 11, 11:03 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
informal peer review.

As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
this statement is irrelevant in the [context] of _my_
experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,
which is considerable [compared] with that of blind-test
advocate ScottW, which is zero.

The fact that a publication is not formally
peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not.

Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other than one test of
loudspeakers (not electronics) that Stanley liked?

And as I said, the test methodology we
used for some of the tests in which I was involved was
praised by a recognized authority in the field.

Well, one instance. With no attempt to correct your past screw-ups.

But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lip****z has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.

I have no familiarity with that.

I don't see why not.

Unlike you John, I don't claim to be a mind-reader or omnisicent.

Stanley's letter was published in Stereophile.

Seems appropriate.

Are you suggesting that if you don't
take the time to read something, it does not exist,
Mr. Krueger?

That seems very stupid, John. Why would you even bother to ask such a
ludicrous question?

Maybe it is true that you ghost-write for some of the RAO anonymous trolls,
after all. ;-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 8:18*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

The fact that a publication is not formally
peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not.

Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other than one test of
loudspeakers (not electronics) that Stanley liked?

2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.

2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews to base his
buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid also admitted that he
doesn't even listen to equipment before buying it.

How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
drives your audio purchases, GOIA?

I presume you base your decisions on reviews. Otherwise, your concern
about how reviews are written seems rather insane.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On May 12, 8:18 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

The fact that a publication is not formally
peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not.

Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other
than one test of loudspeakers (not electronics) that
Stanley liked?

2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.

2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews
to base his buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid
also admitted that he doesn't even listen to equipment
before buying it.

How about you, GOIA?

As a matter of principle ****R, I'm not going to respond to any more posts
from you that refer to anybody being insane, not even the Middiot or
yourself.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
drives your audio purchases, GOIA?

Nothing fancy. Mainly the percentage discount off list. Turdy' speakers,
for example, are a pair of NHTs, which he purchased in the mistaken belief
that Ken Kantor, NHT's head of design, was a kindred spirit in the aBxism
religion. Of course, the Kroo waited until they were on clearance so he
could afford them.

I presume you base your decisions on reviews. Otherwise, your concern
about how reviews are written seems rather insane.

It's a mistake to connect the "debating trade" to reality. Krooger's
komplaints about reviews are conceived in the logical vacuum of an
aBxism-infused existence. In that dementian™, publishing subjective
reviews leads to forfeiture of the publisher's assets, and/or death.

Krooger would come right out and say "Don't **** with us!" except that as
a good Kristian, he frowns on cursing in public.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

My master Arny Krueger's speakers, for example, are a pair of NHTs,

Shows how poorly informed you are, Middiot.

I own 4 pair of NHT speakers:

One pair 2.5i
One pair A10
One pair Super One
One pair Super Zero


he purchased in the mistaken belief that Ken Kantor,
NHT's head of design, was a kindred spirit in the aBxism
religion.

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people whose opinion I
respected.

Of course, the Kroo waited until they were on
clearance so he could afford them.

All the above products remained in production for several years after I
purchased them.

In the case of the A10s, they remained in production for a shorter time than
the rest, due to a certain RAO regular's successful attempt to force their
manufacturer out of business through defamation and mismanagement.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 6:21*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote

On May 12, 8:18 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

The fact that a publication is not formally
peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not.

Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other
than one test of loudspeakers (not electronics) that
Stanley liked?

2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.

2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews
to base his buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid
also admitted that he doesn't even listen to equipment
before buying it.

How about you, GOIA?

As a matter of principle ****R, I'm not going to respond to any more posts
from you that refer to anybody being insane, not even the Middiot or
yourself.

Perfect. For the record, I've never called George or myself "insane".

So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines in your buying
decisions? If "yes" which ones?

If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Mai, 19:18, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:



How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
drives your audio purchases, GOIA?



Maybe Arny's steak habits will provide us a clue.
http://groceryguy.blogspot.com/2006/...eapskates.html

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
Clyde Slick wrote:








no, you insist that stereophile write DBT reviews.




Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
in it,




Do you make an effort when asking stupid questions,
or is it a gift ?

There are numerous inconsistencies and fallacies
in your position. Number 0ne, in requiring the reviewers
to perform dbt audio testing on review samples, the test
would not proved anything to me if they fail to detect
differences.

Number two, there are cluster of aphids glowing on top
of your head. You will need a skillful barber to have
them remove. Let him shave your head and have him
scrape these clumps of tubules sticking out of your
scalp for small, additional fee.

Number three, these business of audio testing has gone
way over your head that I now think that eating bugs
would be a better alternative in helping to keep your
mind in check when you aren't so preoccupied with
your audio hardware. You should start by tallying the types
of bugs available to you in your front yard and have these
information ready next time McKelvy rear his ugly head
at Rao.

Number four, invite Arny "Tuck 'em boys" Krooger to your
house there in SoCal. Have him read the Bible while he's
sitting in your dining area. Have him read the passages
aloud all by himself as everyone gathers behind him.
After 20 minutes, immediately drill a quarter-inch holes
on bony prominences in the back of his head. Draw as
much blood as possible while observing Krooger closely as
he lapses further back into incoherancy. After 30 minutes,
plug the holes on the back of his head using rubber corks
sized to fit. Tell Arny to go **** himself.



ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Mai, 19:21, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On May 12, 8:18 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

The fact that a publication is not formally
peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.

Of course not.

Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other
than one test of loudspeakers (not electronics) that
Stanley liked?

2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.

2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews
to base his buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid
also admitted that he doesn't even listen to equipment
before buying it.

How about you, GOIA?

As a matter of principle ****R, I'm not going to respond to any more posts
from you that refer to anybody being insane, not even the Middiot or
yourself.-

Congrats to Shhh!
He finally figured out to silence Insane Arny.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Mai, 19:52, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


In the case of the A10s, they remained in production for a shorter time than
the rest, due to a certain RAO regular's successful attempt to force their
manufacturer out of business through defamation and mismanagement.

Who is that??
I really want you to answer, so I'll pass on calling you insane,
for just this one post.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people whose opinion I
respected.


In other words, he *didn't* listen to them. Reviewers subjective opions
are just for misleading the public, but those of your friends are a paragon
of objectivism, is that right Arny?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message


So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
in your buying decisions?

Generally no.

If "yes" which ones?

If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?

Public safety and welfare. Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
at least as big as the side of a barn.

I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
whose opinion I respected.


In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.

You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I bought this stuff
and never listened to it! Trust me, I've listened to it all!

It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about listening to the
equipment before they buy it!

Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading the public,

Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.

Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did not make a big point
out of the reviewers thoughts about sound quality. Since most of these
reviewers don't know how to properly listen to audio gear, why should
anybody give them any credibility at all?

but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism, is that right
Arny?

Not at all.

Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and they are smart enough
to know a reasonable listening test from an unreasonable one.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
whose opinion I respected.


In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.

You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I bought this stuff
and never listened to it! Trust me, I've listened to it all!

It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about listening to the
equipment before they buy it!

So you listened to it......but bought it based "on the recommendation of
people whose opinion I respected". That's you're statement. Doesn't say
much for your trust in your own judgement, does it Arny? Is that what this
is all about....you don't trust yourself to know really good sound from
mediocre sound,, and so you have to rely on the advice of "objectivist
friends" and measurements to tell you what buy?

Pretty pathetic.


Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading the public,

Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.

Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did not make a big
point out of the reviewers thoughts about sound quality. Since most of
these reviewers don't know how to properly listen to audio gear, why
should anybody give them any credibility at all?

And you know how they listen, how? Would you care to quote specific
examples?


but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism, is that right
Arny?

Not at all.

Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and they are smart
enough to know a reasonable listening test from an unreasonable one.

And a reasonable listening test in your opinion is what, Arny, since you've
already ruled out ABX for speakers?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Harry Lavo said:

In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.

You're insane, Harry.

Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 9:08*am, George M. Middius
wrote:
Harry Lavo said:

In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
You're insane, Harry.

Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".

As it turns out, that only applies to those calling GOIA insane.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
You're insane, Harry.

Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".

As it turns out, that only applies to those calling GOIA insane.

I don't know about that. Krooger has previously asserted that he is
obliged to follow "debating trade" rules. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 6:13*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
in your buying decisions?

Generally no.

Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for subjective magazine
reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.

If "yes" which ones?
If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?

Public safety and welfare.

I don't but based on reviews either. Who are you "protecting"?

Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
at least as big as the side of a barn.

But you aren't. That's the funny part.

Isn't it true that a DBT only determines if that individual can detect
a difference in that setting?

I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)

So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they write reviews.

Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio industry?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)

So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they write reviews.
Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio industry?

Krooger's list of taboo words:

1. insane
2. envious

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 11:05*am, ScottW wrote:

* Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
reviews send you into such a tizzy?

I didn't know that pointing out hypocrisy, misinformation, or poor
critical thinking skills qualified as a "tizzy". Is this (another) new
word definition?

[UnsteadyKen]

George M. Middius said:

Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".



Post ignored
--
Ken

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 1:13*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 13, 10:53*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 13, 11:05*am, ScottW wrote:

* Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
reviews send you into such a tizzy?

I didn't know that pointing out hypocrisy, misinformation, or poor
critical thinking skills qualified as a "tizzy". Is this (another) new
word definition?

*That is poor critical thinking. *See how easy meaningless
platitudes can be spewed?
*Let's address your intellectual laziness next or will that just
send you into another tizzy?

Hm. How can it be that your being really, really ****ed that a
magazine you don't read whose reviews you don't use aren't doing tests
that you've never done yourself might be considered "hypocrisy" or
"poor critical thinking"?

And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
on my part?

LOL! Please explain.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On May 13, 6:13 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
in your buying decisions?

Generally no.

Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for
subjective magazine reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.

Reason being that magazine reviews are cheap slapdash affairs, whose
fabricators can't be bothered with the trouble to use adequate procedures to
back up their recommendations.

If "yes" which ones?
If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're
done?

Public safety and welfare.

I don't but based on reviews either. Who are you "protecting"?

I'm not protecting anybody. However, I am against abusing people by foisting
off opinons based on inadequate evidence.

Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
at least as big as the side of a barn.

But you aren't.

Delusions of omniscience noted. How do you know whether I'm having fun or
not?

That's the funny part.

What's funny is watching you abuse logic and reason, ****R.

Isn't it true that a DBT only determines if that
individual can detect a difference in that setting?

That would be true for DBTs involving just one individual. If that one
individual is me, then the results would be completely relevant to me.

I think every person who is interested in honesty and
reason should have a
punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)

So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they
write reviews.

I think that many of them are so poorly-informed that they are probably
sincere about the bilge they write and have published under their names or
aliases.

Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio
industry?

Do you seriously call what John has done to his reputation in serious
technical circles "success"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
whose opinion I respected.


In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.

You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I
bought this stuff and never listened to it! Trust me,
I've listened to it all!

It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about
listening to the equipment before they buy it!

So you listened to it......but bought it based "on the
recommendation of people whose opinion I respected".

You have the steps out of order.

That's you're statement.

No, that's your statement. As usual, you've got things bass ackwards. ;-)

Doesn't say much for your trust
in your own judgement, does it Arny?

I guess you're unaware of the concept of return privileges, Harry. Here's a
tip Harry, return priveleges are what you get when you buy things through
most modern sales facilities as opposed to buying from Sick Sam a nearby
parking lot.

Is that what this
is all about....you don't trust yourself to know really
good sound from mediocre sound,, and so you have to rely
on the advice of "objectivist friends" and measurements
to tell you what buy?

That's a wild set of conclusions you've lept to, Harry.

Pretty pathetic.

Pretty pathetic how you leap to conclusions, Harry.

Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading
the public,

Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.

Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did
not make a big point out of the reviewers thoughts about
sound quality. Since most of these reviewers don't know
how to properly listen to audio gear, why should anybody
give them any credibility at all?

And you know how they listen, how?

Read the articles.

Would you care to quote specific examples?

Well, lets start with any formal power amplifier review from Stereophile,
published in the last 40 or so years.

but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism,
is that right Arny?

Not at all.

Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and
they are smart enough to know a reasonable listening
test from an unreasonable one.

And a reasonable listening test in your opinion is what,
Arny, since you've already ruled out ABX for speakers?

ABX for power amplifiers and players.

[Arny Krueger]

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m
George M. Middius said:

Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the
"debating trade" handbook requires you to ignore any
post containing the word "insane".



Post ignored

Not worth the trouble - I ignored every post that the Middiot made that
mentioned me or one of my posts for several years, and it had no effect on
his posting habits whatsoever. He obviously posts for himself. I guess the
idea of typing something in no matter how childish and stupid, and then
seeing it on the Internet is all he needs.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

KrazyBorg lied:

Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for
subjective magazine reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.

Reason being that magazine reviews are cheap slapdash affairs

Stop lying, Turdbucket. The "reason" is you're too demented to understand
what the reviewers are talking about.

The fact is that subjective reviews are quite the opposite of "slapdash".
They are typically exhaustive, excruciatingly detailed, and laden with a
haze of ineffable concepts. All of those characteristics overtax your
limited ability to process human language.

Arnii, it's too bad your insanity prevents you from seeing yourself as
Normals see you. Otherwise you'd be forced to, you know, end it all.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 4:41*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 13, 12:08*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 13, 1:13*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 13, 10:53*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 13, 11:05*am, ScottW wrote:

* Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
reviews send you into such a tizzy?

I didn't know that pointing out hypocrisy, misinformation, or poor
critical thinking skills qualified as a "tizzy". Is this (another) new
word definition?

*That is poor critical thinking. *See how easy meaningless
platitudes can be spewed?
*Let's address your intellectual laziness next or will that just
send you into another tizzy?

Hm. How can it be that your being really, really ****ed

*I'm not. I know reality is elusive to you but do rry to get a grip.

that a
magazine you don't read whose reviews you don't use aren't doing tests
that you've never done yourself might be considered *"hypocrisy" or
"poor critical thinking"?

If you said corrupt, I'd yell bingo for you.

According to GOIA, they're lying. According to you, they're corrcupt.
LOL!

And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
on my part?

*How about just plain wrong?

If you yelled "I'm stupid!" I'd yell "Bingo!" for you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 13, 4:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 13, 2:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

According to GOIA, they're lying. According to you, they're corrcupt.
LOL!

*You complain when I take out letters, how about your tendency to add
them?

Are yrs smple tpos? LOL!
And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
on my part?

*How about just plain wrong?

If you yelled "I'm stupid!" I'd yell "Bingo!"

*All your arguments boil down to the same childish hate.
*Oh well....

Hate? LOL!

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
whose opinion I respected.


In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.

You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I
bought this stuff and never listened to it! Trust me,
I've listened to it all!

It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about
listening to the equipment before they buy it!

So you listened to it......but bought it based "on the
recommendation of people whose opinion I respected".

You have the steps out of order.

That's you're statement.

No, that's your statement. As usual, you've got things bass ackwards. ;-)

I'm sorry, Arny, you specifically stated that you based you purchase on the
recommendation of friends, not on listening done on the recommendation of
friends. There is a BIG difference. Either you were telling the truth
originally and now are covering your tracks, or you made a very sloppy (and
perhaps subconsciously revealing) mistake.



Doesn't say much for your trust
in your own judgement, does it Arny?

I guess you're unaware of the concept of return privileges, Harry. Here's
a tip Harry, return priveleges are what you get when you buy things
through most modern sales facilities as opposed to buying from Sick Sam a
nearby parking lot.

Avoids the question, Arny. I have only once if fifty years of audio
purchases felt the need to take something back....that's because I made the
correct choices to begin with...and not a one off of a white truck. Your
the one more prone to do that.

So let's see now...you've changed your story so that now you say you bought
your speakers based on the recommendation of friends whose judgement you
trust....and you listened to them but still didn't fully trust your ears, so
you made sure you had a return privelege, is that it, Arny. Perhaps
commendable for a newbie, but hardly showing the self-confidence of a fully
music-aware audiophile, is it Arny.



Is that what this
is all about....you don't trust yourself to know really
good sound from mediocre sound,, and so you have to rely
on the advice of "objectivist friends" and measurements
to tell you what buy?

That's a wild set of conclusions you've lept to, Harry.

Not lept, Arny....inferred. It's called connecting the dots.


Pretty pathetic.

Pretty pathetic how you leap to conclusions, Harry.


Afraid to let the self-evident conclusion stand, Arny?


Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading
the public,

Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.

Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did
not make a big point out of the reviewers thoughts about
sound quality. Since most of these reviewers don't know
how to properly listen to audio gear, why should anybody
give them any credibility at all?

And you know how they listen, how?

Read the articles.

I do. I want you to describe what you glean from those articles that
suggests they "don't know how to properly listen". Remember know, the
subject is LOUDSPEAKERS!



Would you care to quote specific examples?

Well, lets start with any formal power amplifier review from Stereophile,
published in the last 40 or so years.

Last time I looked, the equipment directories didn't have any loudspeakers
listed under the brand name "Power Amplifier", Arny. Nice attempt to duck
the issue. Why don't you face it like the manly slayer of audio-fools you
claim to be.



but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism,
is that right Arny?

Not at all.

Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and
they are smart enough to know a reasonable listening
test from an unreasonable one.

And a reasonable listening test in your opinion is what,
Arny, since you've already ruled out ABX for speakers?


Except we are talking about SPEAKERS, Arny, specifically YOUR speakers and
YOUR friends and the superior listening techniques they must have had to
convice you that their advice was so much more reliable than any and all
magazine reviewers.

Arny, it's called "hoisted on your own petard"! You simply mouthed off once
again and have absolutely no logical position or evidence to support it..