NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.
So after praising to the skies Sean Olive, who's done nothing to
deserve such followers, he says:" Is that the end of all such testing
on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild (his spelling) in
your mind?"
Forget the bad temper. I know how he must feel. After all a loudspeaker
testing more to his liking does not exist.. But Sean Olive
disappoints. Bad, bad Sean! He's not meeting our research
specialist's rigid criteria for a good test. He had only piddly 260+
listeners. That does not impress the demanding scientist NYOB.. He will
organize forthwith a much better test that no doubt will prove his and
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components. Neither he nor one in his chapel managed as yet to give one
single reference to a simple request (I recopy one of a dozen
challenges.).
"Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. ...After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different to a small panel. Even
when they are ABXing."
The best answer so far: "We have none because cables , amps, preamps,
dacs, cdplayers are so good that they all sound the same"
But count on NYOB to give the answer worthy of a school-kid caught
lying:
" Not everything, as you've been shown many times (notice "many"
standing for "none") before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests"
"Shown many times" means of course " I said the same many times
before" and still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.
A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will
work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No
point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a
waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will
find the exact quote)
And now Sean Olive did exactly that. He used just DBT. Lo and behold-
the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing differences but
when not bothered with that knew what they liked.The chapel did not
like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of
the simple unsophisticated DBT. Go to it fellows- improve on poor,
lost Sean Olive. NYOB is waiting for his reference so that he does not
have to copy the Public Library index entries again.
Ludovic Mirabel
NYOB, I wish you'd stop sending me to speak to Sean Olive. Answering
one query of yours does not make him your pal to send people to
without his authorization. A) Stupid move B) Bad manners.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true.

Mikey has a real bad habit stating that his opponent knows such-and-such.
Mikey isn't very smart, yet he imagines himself a mindreader.

I think that Mikey has not had the benefit of a liberal arts education,
which at least some of the time, can teach a person how to think, and how to
relate with trained intellects.

Instead, Mikey is an intellectual primitive, who keeps attempting to engage
us on his terms, which is that of an intellectual primitive.

He and Floyd Toole, who also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.

As a substitute for independent thought, Mikey continually identifies
individuals who he idolizes. I now count three: Arny Krueger, Floyd Tool,
and Sean Olive. These are Mikey's baseball cards. He does not understand
that idolatry has no part in science.

Mikey does not belong here, either by wit or disposition. He does not
understand that it is simply bad form to spam newsgroups with this stuff. An
intellectual uses other material to make his own argument, not by copying it
wholesale.

I concur with your conclusion that Mikey has bad manners.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.
So after praising to the skies Sean Olive, who's done nothing to
deserve such followers, he says:" Is that the end of all such testing
on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild (his spelling) in
your mind?"
Forget the bad temper. I know how he must feel. After all a loudspeaker
testing more to his liking does not exist.. But Sean Olive
disappoints. Bad, bad Sean! He's not meeting our research
specialist's rigid criteria for a good test. He had only piddly 260+
listeners. That does not impress the demanding scientist NYOB.. He will
organize forthwith a much better test that no doubt will prove his and
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way, but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences.


Neither he nor one in his chapel managed as yet to give one
single reference to a simple request (I recopy one of a dozen
challenges.).
"Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. ...After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different to a small panel. Even
when they are ABXing."
The best answer so far: "We have none because cables , amps, preamps,
dacs, cdplayers are so good that they all sound the same"
But count on NYOB to give the answer worthy of a school-kid caught
lying:
" Not everything, as you've been shown many times (notice "many"
standing for "none") before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests"
"Shown many times" means of course " I said the same many times
before" and still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.

All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a little effort
on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers might be
found.



A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will
work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No
point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a
waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will
find the exact quote)
And now Sean Olive did exactly that. He used just DBT. Lo and behold-
the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing differences but
when not bothered with that knew what they liked.

One of the results of this test was that it was found that when asked for a
preference, the listeners always chose more accurate speakers over lesser
ones.

The chapel did not
like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of
the simple unsophisticated DBT.

You're making things up again.

Go to it fellows- improve on poor,
lost Sean Olive. NYOB is waiting for his reference so that he does not
have to copy the Public Library index entries again.
Ludovic Mirabel
NYOB, I wish you'd stop sending me to speak to Sean Olive. Answering
one query of yours does not make him your pal to send people to
without his authorization. A) Stupid move B) Bad manners.

Actually he's answered several questions I've asked him.
Why not grow some balls and send a respectful e-mail to him and see what
happens?
What are you afraid of?

On the reason why it's so hard to find positive results from an ABX
comparison of SS equipment, think of medica; testing. If you test the same
medication over and over, you expect to get the same results from every
test. Since SS equipment can easily perform flat from 20 Hz to 20KHz it's
like testing aspirin over and over and over. Nothing changes.



Thanks for admitting that you are scared ****less of getting the answers you
claim you want.

wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.
So after praising to the skies Sean Olive, who's done nothing to
deserve such followers, he says:" Is that the end of all such testing
on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild (his spelling) in
your mind?"
Forget the bad temper. I know how he must feel. After all a loudspeaker
testing more to his liking does not exist.. But Sean Olive
disappoints. Bad, bad Sean! He's not meeting our research
specialist's rigid criteria for a good test. He had only piddly 260+
listeners. That does not impress the demanding scientist NYOB.. He will
organize forthwith a much better test that no doubt will prove his and
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way, but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences.


Neither he nor one in his chapel managed as yet to give one
single reference to a simple request (I recopy one of a dozen
challenges.).
"Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. ...After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different to a small panel. Even
when they are ABXing."
The best answer so far: "We have none because cables , amps, preamps,
dacs, cdplayers are so good that they all sound the same"
But count on NYOB to give the answer worthy of a school-kid caught
lying:
" Not everything, as you've been shown many times (notice "many"
standing for "none") before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests"
"Shown many times" means of course " I said the same many times
before" and still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.

All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a little
effort on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers
might be found.

Mikey, you shouldn't post the documents. Post the links.
The answer is, ABX = NFG.
Do you need a translation, dimwit?

wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]
Actually he's answered several questions I've asked him.
Why not grow some balls and send a respectful e-mail to him and see what
happens?
What are you afraid of?

On the reason why it's so hard to find positive results from an ABX
comparison of SS equipment, think of medica; testing. If you test the
same medication over and over, you expect to get the same results from
every test. Since SS equipment can easily perform flat from 20 Hz to
20KHz it's like testing aspirin over and over and over. Nothing changes.



Thanks for admitting that you are scared ****less of getting the answers
you claim you want.
Mikey, I don't think Mr. Olive appreciates you putting his name out on the
web for someone to call.
BAD, Mikey! Very BAD BAD BAD.
If you do not cease this, I will call Mr. Olive myself and tell him what you
are doing with his name.

wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.

You should seek treatment for dyslexia, which is making it impossible for
you to read posts correctly.

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole, who
also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.
So after praising to the skies Sean Olive, who's done nothing to
deserve such followers, he says:" Is that the end of all such testing
on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild (his spelling) in
your mind?"
Forget the bad temper. I know how he must feel. After all a loudspeaker
testing more to his liking does not exist.. But Sean Olive
disappoints. Bad, bad Sean! He's not meeting our research
specialist's rigid criteria for a good test. He had only piddly 260+
listeners. That does not impress the demanding scientist NYOB.. He will
organize forthwith a much better test that no doubt will prove his and
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way, but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences.


Neither he nor one in his chapel managed as yet to give one
single reference to a simple request (I recopy one of a dozen
challenges.).
"Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. ...After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different to a small panel. Even
when they are ABXing."
The best answer so far: "We have none because cables , amps, preamps,
dacs, cdplayers are so good that they all sound the same"
But count on NYOB to give the answer worthy of a school-kid caught
lying:
" Not everything, as you've been shown many times (notice "many"
standing for "none") before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests"
"Shown many times" means of course " I said the same many times
before" and still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.

All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a little effort
on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers might be
found.



A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will
work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No
point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a
waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will
find the exact quote)
And now Sean Olive did exactly that. He used just DBT. Lo and behold-
the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing differences but
when not bothered with that knew what they liked.

One of the results of this test was that it was found that when asked for a
preference, the listeners always chose more accurate speakers over lesser
ones.

The chapel did not
like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of
the simple unsophisticated DBT.

You're making things up again.

Go to it fellows- improve on poor,
lost Sean Olive. NYOB is waiting for his reference so that he does not
have to copy the Public Library index entries again.
Ludovic Mirabel
NYOB, I wish you'd stop sending me to speak to Sean Olive. Answering
one query of yours does not make him your pal to send people to
without his authorization. A) Stupid move B) Bad manners.

Actually he's answered several questions I've asked him.
Why not grow some balls and send a respectful e-mail to him and see what
happens?
What are you afraid of?

On the reason why it's so hard to find positive results from an ABX
comparison of SS equipment, think of medica; testing. If you test the same
medication over and over, you expect to get the same results from every
test. Since SS equipment can easily perform flat from 20 Hz to 20KHz it's
like testing aspirin over and over and over. Nothing changes.



Thanks for admitting that you are scared ****less of getting the answers you
claim you want.

NYOB in "The case for ABX" ). Nov14
"Not everything, as you've been shown many times before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests".

NYOB Nov.16 : "
Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way,
but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences I never said that...".(see Nov 14)

NYOB Nov.15:
I said:
...still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.
NYOB answers (Nov.15):
"All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a
little effort
on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers might be

found."
: No document showing that a panel heard differences between any audio
components when DBT/ABXing was EVER published in any audio mag. let
alone a professional journal. They exist only in the oobjectivists'
(so called) vivid imagination.. Is that clear?. Not one. You deny it?
Quote one single sentence in suupport from the paper's conclusions
and show me up for a liar. Easy. Do it.

His coreligionists shouted: "No point in testing loudspeakers. The
differences are obvious."
They are right. The differences ARE obvious PROVIDING you don't
start "testing" for them. "Testing" scrambles brains.
But nothing frazzles NYOB. He picks himself up and sermonizes:
thus: "The fact that yo use only one expample of people not being
able to distinguish speakers that you believe they should have and
trying to
globalize it for all DBT's everywhere is one of the signs that you are
not
bright enough to discuss this with, since you are obviously not getting
it"
So one day they are so obvious that there is no point in "testing"
and the next Olive's 260 panelists testing standards are not good
enough for this village brain.
Thus he manages to squeeze two flagrant "inaccuracies" and one
utter idiocy into a single short message.
I can't find it in my heart to call him a liar. I think that he
simply isn't clever enough to see how primitive, how transparent his
"inaccuracies are. . In his blessed state of ignorance he thinks
he's fooling at least some readers... Truly blessed, because he
appears to never have had a shadow of doubt about his mental powers and
soldiers on fearlessly where his arch-priests fear to tread,
A brief lesson about "evidence".for NYOB and his chapel. (Not the
first time) YOU say ABX works to show differences. You have no research
results of your own so YOU must find references in support of your
contention.
Instead you and your chapel make me waste time researching the
publications for your nonexistent evidence. I say I found zero, nil,
zilch. I'm not asking any questions of you, dear man. I did my home
work.
I have no questions. I have the answers. Any answer Sean Olive could
give me is available to the world in his papers that he sent me
courteously, unasked.
You have the gall to tell me to ask a researcher called Sean Olive to
search for these nonexistent references for you! He is not your
secretary. Do you really imagine that I would make such an utter fool
of myself at your bidding? You do it and see what answer you' get
I'm lost in thought: Is it possible that you are, that anyone could
be, so transparently mendacious? And so happy with himself to boot. Or
are you just the village fool of the RAO village?
Ludovic Mirabel

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


Here is one: Took me all of five minutes: Want more? Search your
chapel's collected works.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:



Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
Pinkerton said:
Sure it's repeatable but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. (((((((Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.)))))))

Since we are giving psychiatric advice Sullivan- how about giving a
rest to green envy and impotent rage? One day you want to prove that I
falsified my medical credentials. Another you killfile me when you run
out of arguments and can not think of mouthing something in the
category of this disgusting missive.
Sullivan this is RAO and there is no censor-Bates to run for shelter.
Believe me I'll always be able to cope with the insect life. In spades

Ludovic Mirabel

--

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
NYOB found a new prophet.
Because Sean Olive is one of the foremost experts in the field of
audio
research. Even Ludovic knows this to be true. He and Floyd Toole,
who
also
works at Harman, have done some of the best work in this area.
Poor, pathetic NYOB. His gurus, whenever they are short of an answer,
leave him to twist slowly in the wind all by his lonesome self. "Let
him make a fool of himself as only he knows how" they say. "
We'll come back when it is all over with and forgotten and we can
sing our incantations all over like new.
So after praising to the skies Sean Olive, who's done nothing to
deserve such followers, he says:" Is that the end of all such testing
on how loudspeakers sound, you insufferable twit?
One research example and the whole thing is inavild (his spelling) in
your mind?"
Forget the bad temper. I know how he must feel. After all a loudspeaker
testing more to his liking does not exist.. But Sean Olive
disappoints. Bad, bad Sean! He's not meeting our research
specialist's rigid criteria for a good test. He had only piddly 260+
listeners. That does not impress the demanding scientist NYOB.. He will
organize forthwith a much better test that no doubt will prove his and
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way,
but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences.


Neither he nor one in his chapel managed as yet to give one
single reference to a simple request (I recopy one of a dozen
challenges.).
"Of course as I said before I would love to see one of your "many"
references to positive DBT/ABX tests by most of a panel of say 10
audiophiles. ...After all there must be SOME comparable audio
components out there that will sound different to a small panel. Even
when they are ABXing."
The best answer so far: "We have none because cables , amps, preamps,
dacs, cdplayers are so good that they all sound the same"
But count on NYOB to give the answer worthy of a school-kid caught
lying:
" Not everything, as you've been shown many times (notice "many"
standing for "none") before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests"
"Shown many times" means of course " I said the same many times
before" and still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.

All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a little
effort
on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers might be
found.



A couple of years ago I challenged Arny Krueger to prove that ABX will
work testing loudspeakers. He could not contain his hilarity: ""No
point in testing. They are so obviously different that it would be a
waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from memory but if challenged will
find the exact quote)
And now Sean Olive did exactly that. He used just DBT. Lo and behold-
the majority of panelists had problems with recognizing differences but
when not bothered with that knew what they liked.

One of the results of this test was that it was found that when asked for
a
preference, the listeners always chose more accurate speakers over lesser
ones.

The chapel did not
like the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of
the simple unsophisticated DBT.

You're making things up again.

Go to it fellows- improve on poor,
lost Sean Olive. NYOB is waiting for his reference so that he does not
have to copy the Public Library index entries again.
Ludovic Mirabel
NYOB, I wish you'd stop sending me to speak to Sean Olive. Answering
one query of yours does not make him your pal to send people to
without his authorization. A) Stupid move B) Bad manners.

Actually he's answered several questions I've asked him.
Why not grow some balls and send a respectful e-mail to him and see what
happens?
What are you afraid of?

On the reason why it's so hard to find positive results from an ABX
comparison of SS equipment, think of medica; testing. If you test the
same
medication over and over, you expect to get the same results from every
test. Since SS equipment can easily perform flat from 20 Hz to 20KHz
it's
like testing aspirin over and over and over. Nothing changes.



Thanks for admitting that you are scared ****less of getting the answers
you
claim you want.

NYOB in "The case for ABX" ). Nov14
"Not everything, as you've been shown many times before. When the
differences are audible, people hear them in ABX tests".

NYOB Nov.16 : "
Why do say that? It's never been my position. A DBT is the best way,
but
ABX is only one form of DBT and not the only way to reveal subtle
differences I never said that...".(see Nov 14)

NYOB Nov.15:
I said:
...still NO REFERENCE- from him or anyone else. Unless you
count copying a stack of irrelevant Public Library topic entries as
reference.
NYOB answers (Nov.15):
"All the documents I've posted are from the web, perhaps with a
little effort
on your part, maybe even an e-mail to Sean Olive, your answers might be

found."
: No document showing that a panel heard differences between any audio
components when DBT/ABXing was EVER published in any audio mag. let
alone a professional journal. They exist only in the oobjectivists'
(so called) vivid imagination.. Is that clear?. Not one. You deny it?
Quote one single sentence in suupport from the paper's conclusions
and show me up for a liar. Easy. Do it.

His coreligionists shouted: "No point in testing loudspeakers. The
differences are obvious."
They are right. The differences ARE obvious PROVIDING you don't
start "testing" for them. "Testing" scrambles brains.
But nothing frazzles NYOB. He picks himself up and sermonizes:
thus: "The fact that yo use only one expample of people not being
able to distinguish speakers that you believe they should have and
trying to
globalize it for all DBT's everywhere is one of the signs that you are
not
bright enough to discuss this with, since you are obviously not getting
it"
So one day they are so obvious that there is no point in "testing"
and the next Olive's 260 panelists testing standards are not good
enough for this village brain.
Thus he manages to squeeze two flagrant "inaccuracies" and one
utter idiocy into a single short message.
I can't find it in my heart to call him a liar. I think that he
simply isn't clever enough to see how primitive, how transparent his
"inaccuracies are. . In his blessed state of ignorance he thinks
he's fooling at least some readers... Truly blessed, because he
appears to never have had a shadow of doubt about his mental powers and
soldiers on fearlessly where his arch-priests fear to tread,
A brief lesson about "evidence".for NYOB and his chapel. (Not the
first time) YOU say ABX works to show differences. You have no research
results of your own so YOU must find references in support of your
contention.
Instead you and your chapel make me waste time researching the
publications for your nonexistent evidence. I say I found zero, nil,
zilch. I'm not asking any questions of you, dear man. I did my home
work.
I have no questions. I have the answers. Any answer Sean Olive could
give me is available to the world in his papers that he sent me
courteously, unasked.
You have the gall to tell me to ask a researcher called Sean Olive to
search for these nonexistent references for you!

Stupid little man, I'm not telling you to do that, I'm merely suggesting
that if you ask him about it it might be made more clear to as to why the
results came out that way and perhaps you could be shown data that you have
not as yet been able to find.

He is not your
secretary. Do you really imagine that I would make such an utter fool
of myself at your bidding?

I beleive that if you ask him a question, you probably will get an answer.
Of course there's always the chance you don't really want to know.

You do it and see what answer you' get
I'm lost in thought: Is it possible that you are, that anyone could
be, so transparently mendacious? And so happy with himself to boot. Or
are you just the village fool of the RAO village?
Ludovic Mirabel

Is it possible that you are so utterly lazy and lacking in inquisitiveness,
that the idea of communicating with someone as knowledgableas Mr. Olive
scares teh **** out of you?

Or are you just another posturing crybaby who would rather bitch about
things instead of learning?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


Here is one: Took me all of five minutes: Want more? Search your
chapel's collected works.

Please stop with this, you're embarrassing yourself at how stupid you look.
Nothing, absolutely noting below says that ABX is the only way to test for
subtle differences.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:



Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"

There is no such indication that was ever said.

A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
Pinkerton said:
Sure it's repeatable but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. (((((((Please supply details of *any* test which you can
demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.)))))))

Since we are giving psychiatric advice Sullivan- how about giving a
rest to green envy and impotent rage?

How about you try telling the truth?

One day you want to prove that I
falsified my medical credentials. Another you killfile me when you run
out of arguments and can not think of mouthing something in the
category of this disgusting missive.
Sullivan this is RAO and there is no censor-Bates to run for shelter.
Believe me I'll always be able to cope with the insect life. In spades


You ARE insect life.

You provided nothing that shows that anybody has ever said that ABX is the
only way to resolve subtle differences.

You are a liar, again.

wrote in message
nk.net...

[snip]

Is it possible that you are so utterly lazy and lacking in
inquisitiveness, that the idea of communicating with someone as
knowledgableas Mr. Olive scares teh **** out of you?

No, Mikey. And you have NO RIGHT to put out Mr. Olive as someone to contact
by phone.
He is far too busy making lousy stereos. If distracted, some quality might
slip through.

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


Here is one: Took me all of five minutes: Want more? Search your
chapel's collected works.

Please stop with this, you're embarrassing yourself at how stupid you
look.
Nothing, absolutely noting below says that ABX is the only way to test for
subtle differences.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:



Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no
differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"

There is no such indication that was ever said.

A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
Pinkerton said:
Sure it's repeatable but you have to use the same equipment. Tom
and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. (((((((Please supply details of *any* test which you can
demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.)))))))

Since we are giving psychiatric advice Sullivan- how about giving a
rest to green envy and impotent rage?

How about you try telling the truth?

One day you want to prove that I
falsified my medical credentials. Another you killfile me when you run
out of arguments and can not think of mouthing something in the
category of this disgusting missive.
Sullivan this is RAO and there is no censor-Bates to run for shelter.
Believe me I'll always be able to cope with the insect life. In spades


You ARE insect life.

No, Mikey, you are a lowlife scum. How dare you insult your better!

You provided nothing that shows that anybody has ever said that ABX is the
only way to resolve subtle differences.

You are a liar, again.
No, Mikey, you are the human slave to your pack of baseball card "hifi
heroes".
If you tried to think for yourself, you would find it impossible.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence undermines the chapel.
The high priest remains silent when the ruling from on high is urgently
needed.
Arny, your brain-child is being threatened. Don't you proclaim it to
be the best way to reveal differences between components. Otherwise why
would anyone bother to pay for the switch-box and go through with the
bother?
Now, a member of your chapel, Sullivan calls me delusional for saying
just that and your mouthpiece NYOB (I'm sure you wish at times you
could do something about that, don't you?) concurs.
It appears you've been hugging schismatic snakes to your bosom.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


Here is one: Took me all of five minutes: Want more? Search your
chapel's collected works.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:



Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
Pinkerton said:
Sure it's repeatable but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. (((((((Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.)))))))


Since we are giving psychiatric advice Sullivan- how about giving a
rest to green envy and impotent rage? One day you want to prove that I
falsified my medical credentials. Another you killfile me when you run
out of arguments and can not think of mouthing something in the
category of this disgusting missive.
Sullivan this is RAO and there is no censor-Bates to run for shelter.
Believe me I'll always be able to cope with the insect life. In spades


Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the *only* way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components -- only that there are none
*superior* to it -- I further suggest that you consult a semiotician in addition
to a psychiatrist. Failing that, you might ask Mr. Pinkerton himself
if he believes that an ABX test is the *only* DBT that can be
used to demonstrate subtle differences in components. I'll be
happy to wager he doesn't. Care to take the bet?




--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence undermines the chapel.

And hence, Dr. Mirabilis ejaculates two replies to the same post.

Oh, evidence of crisis indeed....if not a possibly dangerous
degree of overstimulation, on old Dr. M's part.


Now, a member of your chapel, Sullivan calls me delusional for saying
just that and your mouthpiece NYOB (I'm sure you wish at times you
could do something about that, don't you?) concurs.
It appears you've been hugging schismatic snakes to your bosom.
Ludovic Mirabel

I'm happy to wager that Arny K. does not believe ABX is the *only*
way to demonstrate subtle audible differences between components.
Care to take the bet, Dr.?





--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Sillybot prates on and on and on.

Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the *only* way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components

In case anybody has forgotten, Sillybot has NEVER participated in ANY
DBTs for ANY purpose. In fact, not only did Silly not do an aBxism
ritual for his recent purchase (a mid-priced receiver), he mail-ordered
it without any audition at all. No audition -- not in a store, not in
his home, not in anybody else's home. All he did was read the spec sheet
and surf the Web to get the lowest price.

Sillybot has no use for his beloved aBxism rituals, and yet he trumpets
them loud and long as a panacea for everybody else. Neither does he care
about the quality of the sound he gets from his own system -- any old
mass-market schlock will do.

Sillybot is every bit as much of a hypocrite as his mentors, Arnii
Krooborg and duh-Mikey the Bug Eater.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:22:14 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

Is it possible that you are so utterly lazy and lacking in
inquisitiveness, that the idea of communicating with someone as
knowledgableas Mr. Olive scares teh **** out of you?

No, Mikey. And you have NO RIGHT to put out Mr. Olive as someone to contact
by phone.
He is far too busy making lousy stereos. If distracted, some quality might
slip through.

Well, let's hope he doesn't lurk on RAO. :-)

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence undermines the chapel.

And hence, Dr. Mirabilis ejaculates two replies to the same post.

Well, there have been plenty of posts on RAO which my fingers have
ached to answer many times. I think Ludovic has exercised admirable
restraint.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence
undermines the chapel.

And hence, Dr. Mirabilis ejaculates two replies to the
same post.

Well, there have been plenty of posts on RAO which my
fingers have ached to answer many times. I think Ludovic
has exercised admirable restraint.

The only thing I can think of that Ludovic could exercise
admirably would be a client's dog.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Sillybot prates on and on and on.

Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the *only*
way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components

In case anybody has forgotten, Sillybot has NEVER participated in ANY
DBTs for ANY purpose. In fact, not only did Silly not do an aBxism
ritual for his recent purchase (a mid-priced receiver), he mail-ordered
it without any audition at all. No audition -- not in a store, not in
his home, not in anybody else's home. All he did was read the spec sheet
and surf the Web to get the lowest price.

Sillybot has no use for his beloved aBxism rituals, and yet he trumpets
them loud and long as a panacea for everybody else. Neither does he care
about the quality of the sound he gets from his own system -- any old
mass-market schlock will do.

Among the several things wrong with your review of this post is the fact
that nobody here has ever suggested ABX for anything else than resolving
whether or not differences exist, and then only when someoboy like insists
that they do. The rest of us are well aware that the vast majority of audio
equipment, regardless of price meets or exceeds the necessary requirements
to make a given piece of gear transparent.

Then there's the thing about quality and caring. Since you have not heard
Mr. Sullivan's system, you have zero basis for that comment, not that lack
of knowledge ever stopped you from making an ass of yourself, a trait you
share with many of your buddies, teh so-called "Normals." Apparently
ignorance is what unites you.

Sillybot is every bit as much of a hypocrite as his mentors, Arnii
Krooborg and duh-Mikey the Bug Eater.


George the Audio Ignorant shall be your name from now on.

Since yo are so obvioulsy ignorant about ABX and those of us who understand
it, lets review.

None of us has ever said you should ABX every purchase you make.
None of us has ever said that such a need exists unless and until there is a
question about sound quality between 2 components that should in fact sound
the same.

Since there is no reliable way to make such a determination without some
form of DBT, the subject of ABX is then and only then proffered as a way to
resolve the question.

Please print out this post and keep it handy for future reference, since you
are either the victim of short term memory loss, a deliberate liar, or just
plain stupid, one would think that by now some of this would have sunk in by
now. Since it hasn't, you obviously need some form of quick reference. I
consider it my duty to help the learning disabled, which may very well be
the case for George the Audio Ignorant. Most likely he is some sort of
savant when it comes to language but in all other matters, he's just barely
smart enough to live.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence undermines the chapel.

It's amazing how much you sound like George the Audio Ignorant.

The high priest remains silent when the ruling from on high is urgently
needed.

You speak of faith when there is none involved in the use of ABX or any
other DBT.
Faith is the thing you have to have to believe that 2 components with a
variance of .1 db could sound different when driving normal speakers and not
clipping.

Arny, your brain-child is being threatened. Don't you proclaim it to
be the best way to reveal differences between components. Otherwise why
would anyone bother to pay for the switch-box and go through with the
bother?

They could try ABC/HR.

Now, a member of your chapel, Sullivan calls me delusional for saying
just that and your mouthpiece NYOB (I'm sure you wish at times you
could do something about that, don't you?) concurs.
It appears you've been hugging schismatic snakes to your bosom.
Ludovic Mirabel

It appears that you 've been caught lying again so now you must find a way
to insult those who caught you.

Perhaps if you lost your faith and got a healthy dose of reality, you'd
understand what a **** you appear, when you act this way. Of course that
would mean we couldn't laugh at how stupid you are.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:06:34 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

The ABX is in crisis, heresy looms, dissidence undermines the chapel.

And hence, Dr. Mirabilis ejaculates two replies to the same post.

Well, there have been plenty of posts on RAO which my fingers have
ached to answer many times. I think Ludovic has exercised admirable
restraint.

Restraint? In what sense? He lies at the drop of a hat.

The only restraint he uses is those that the attendants use to keep him away
from his computer so he won't make a fool of himself again.

wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Sillybot prates on and on and on.

Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the *only*
way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components

In case anybody has forgotten, Sillybot has NEVER participated in ANY
DBTs for ANY purpose. In fact, not only did Silly not do an aBxism
ritual for his recent purchase (a mid-priced receiver), he mail-ordered
it without any audition at all. No audition -- not in a store, not in
his home, not in anybody else's home. All he did was read the spec sheet
and surf the Web to get the lowest price.

Sillybot has no use for his beloved aBxism rituals, and yet he trumpets
them loud and long as a panacea for everybody else. Neither does he care
about the quality of the sound he gets from his own system -- any old
mass-market schlock will do.

Among the several things wrong with your review of this post is the fact
that nobody here has ever suggested ABX for anything else than resolving
whether or not differences exist, and then only when someoboy like insists
that they do. The rest of us are well aware that the vast majority of audio
equipment, regardless of price meets or exceeds the necessary requirements
to make a given piece of gear transparent.

The other thing he got wrong, is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files. I've mentioned this to him before, hence
Midi-man must be lying through his teeth just because, well, it seems
to be his *job* around here.

I would advise buyers to do DBTs of components if it's possible,
but I know that it rarely is -- certainly it hasn't been in my case.
I have more often advised that audio magazines conduct
DBTs as part of their equipment reviews, and pass the results along to
consumers, since it's rather more likely they have the means and the
opportunity to do so. Alas, they appear to lack the *motive* ---
or perhaps they have other, overriding, er, *concerns* about
the outcomes of such reviews.

I certainly advise that people's claims about what sounds different
be tempered by the utterly noncontroversial fact that sighted perception
is subject to various insidious forms of
bias. People who acknowledge that simple reality, might naturally
think that some sort of independent verification -- from good measurements,
well-founded physical principles, or from controlled comparison -- is
required before they'll take such claims seriously. I know I do.



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

Sillybot continues his disinformation campaign.

is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files.

Silly 'borg, those aren't real DBTs.

Why don't you just admit you're a poseur, an inflated bladder of
rodomontade and empty religious blather? We're all laughing at you as
your lick your hindquarters in cyberspace.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
his sect's leaders' point because if we heard it once we heard it a
hundred times: ABX is the only way to show subtle differences between
components.

You should seek treatment for those voices in your head, Mirabilis.
Because certainly no one HERE has saying that.


Here is one: Took me all of five minutes: Want more? Search your
chapel's collected works.


(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:



Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX
experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical
experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences
between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same"
A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"
the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being
REPEATABILITY.
Pinkerton said:
Sure it's repeatable but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and
Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got.
There's no inconsistency here unless you are a Mirabel with an
agenda. (((((((Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate
to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic
differences.)))))))


Since we are giving psychiatric advice Sullivan- how about giving a
rest to green envy and impotent rage? One day you want to prove that I
falsified my medical credentials. Another you killfile me when you run
out of arguments and can not think of mouthing something in the
category of this disgusting missive.
Sullivan this is RAO and there is no censor-Bates to run for shelter.
Believe me I'll always be able to cope with the insect life. In spades


Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the *only* way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components -- only that there are none
*superior* to it -- I further suggest that you consult a semiotician in addition
to a psychiatrist. Failing that, you might ask Mr. Pinkerton himself
if he believes that an ABX test is the *only* DBT that can be
used to demonstrate subtle differences in components. I'll be
happy to wager he doesn't. Care to take the bet?

Mea culpa. You win. I'm amending my posting forthwith . Instead
of:"They claim that ABX is the *only* way to show subtle differences
between components" it will now read: "They claim that there is no
way superior to their ABX of showing differences between components"
Fido you win. But partly it is your own fault. Your chapel and its
leader have been keeping mum about all those alternatives up till
now. List all those out there that you yourself have assessed and
preferred and that are available for use by us ordinary audio public?
You can't expect the infidels to keep up with your inner twists and
turns. Also from now on never forget to say: " ABX. It is not the
only one but ...etc etc." And get Krueger to do the same.
Once you've got this settled Fido you'll be free to continue
yapping and snapping at Atkinson's ankles to make him refashion the
"Stereophile" to read as thrillingly as your RAO postings. He has
to be polite to you-it is in his job description.
Ludovic Mirabel
________________________________________________

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:22:14 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

Is it possible that you are so utterly lazy and lacking in
inquisitiveness, that the idea of communicating with someone as
knowledgableas Mr. Olive scares the **** out of you?

No, Mikey. And you have NO RIGHT to put out Mr. Olive as someone to
contact
by phone.

More halucinations and lies, I never said he contact him by phone, but by
e-mail as I did.

He is far too busy making lousy stereos. If distracted, some quality
might
slip through.


There are plenty of hich quality brand names under the Harman umbrella as
Moron would know if he ever bother to visit their website. Most likely he
knows but just chooses to lie.

AKG
Crown
Becker
DBX
Infinity
REL
JBL
JBL pro
Lexicon
Mark Levinson
Studer
And a couple other names are all part of Harman.


Well, let's hope he doesn't lurk on RAO. :-)

If he does, I'm sure he gets to laugh himself silly at guys like Moron and
the Middiot.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...


Sillybot prates on and on and on.

Dr. Mirabilis, as the quote above doesn't assert that ABX is the
*only*
way to
demonstrate subtle differences in components

In case anybody has forgotten, Sillybot has NEVER participated in ANY
DBTs for ANY purpose. In fact, not only did Silly not do an aBxism
ritual for his recent purchase (a mid-priced receiver), he mail-ordered
it without any audition at all. No audition -- not in a store, not in
his home, not in anybody else's home. All he did was read the spec
sheet
and surf the Web to get the lowest price.

Sillybot has no use for his beloved aBxism rituals, and yet he trumpets
them loud and long as a panacea for everybody else. Neither does he
care
about the quality of the sound he gets from his own system -- any old
mass-market schlock will do.

Among the several things wrong with your review of this post is the fact
that nobody here has ever suggested ABX for anything else than resolving
whether or not differences exist, and then only when someoboy like
insists
that they do. The rest of us are well aware that the vast majority of
audio
equipment, regardless of price meets or exceeds the necessary
requirements
to make a given piece of gear transparent.

The other thing he got wrong, is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files. I've mentioned this to him before, hence
Midi-man must be lying through his teeth just because, well, it seems
to be his *job* around here.

Steven, yo have to realize that when you are as corrupt as these fools, the
truth is of no relevance, it is only to be ignored.


I would advise buyers to do DBTs of components if it's possible,
but I know that it rarely is -- certainly it hasn't been in my case.
I have more often advised that audio magazines conduct
DBTs as part of their equipment reviews, and pass the results along to
consumers, since it's rather more likely they have the means and the
opportunity to do so. Alas, they appear to lack the *motive* ---
or perhaps they have other, overriding, er, *concerns* about
the outcomes of such reviews.

Money talks and bull**** walks.

I certainly advise that people's claims about what sounds different
be tempered by the utterly noncontroversial fact that sighted perception
is subject to various insidious forms of
bias. People who acknowledge that simple reality, might naturally
think that some sort of independent verification -- from good
measurements,
well-founded physical principles, or from controlled comparison -- is
required before they'll take such claims seriously. I know I do.

I think this whole thing has gotten to the silliness stage, they know they
have no scientific footing on which to stand and there is nobody doing audi
research that doesn't use some form of DBT and they know that as well.

The only reason that Morein, Middius, Ludovic, et al, keep repeating this
**** is to heckle those of us who actually take it seriously. It wouldn't
surprise me a bit to find out many of these people are the same person,
probably Morein, Maragaret, Ludovic and maybe a couple others are very
likely all the same person, probably Gindi or else one of them is real and
animates the rest of them.

Not that it matters, they are all full of ****.

--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing
stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Sillybot continues his disinformation campaign.

is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files.

Silly 'borg, those aren't real DBTs.

Why don't you just admit you're a poseur, an inflated bladder of
rodomontade and empty religious blather? We're all laughing at you as
your lick your hindquarters in cyberspace.


Why don't you admit that your favorite form of humor is to do a Dutch Oven
on you boyfriend, after the NAMBLA meetings?

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:51:55 GMT, wrote:


Please print out this post and keep it handy for future reference, since you
are either the victim of short term memory loss, a deliberate liar, or just
plain stupid, one would think that by now some of this would have sunk in by
now. Since it hasn't, you obviously need some form of quick reference. I
consider it my duty to help the learning disabled, which may very well be
the case for George the Audio Ignorant. Most likely he is some sort of
savant when it comes to language but in all other matters, he's just barely
smart enough to live.

That's very good, Mike. Very good debating trade stuff. Arnie will be
sitting at your feet soon, which position won't please him one little
bit.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:59:42 GMT, wrote:


Restraint? In what sense?

Well, he hasn't abused anyone or used obscenities. Given the
provocation on RAO that constitutes considerable restraint.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:

The other thing he got wrong, is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files. I've mentioned this to him before, hence
Midi-man must be lying through his teeth just because, well, it seems
to be his *job* around here.


Congratulations!!!
That is an excellent thing to do before deciding which audio files to
purchase.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"paul packer" wrote in message

The only thing I can think of that Ludovic could exercise admirably would
be a client's dog.


"At least" he has a client.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:57:30 GMT, wrote:


Faith is the thing you have to have to believe that 2 components with a
variance of .1 db could sound different when driving normal speakers and not
clipping.

Faith is what you'd have to have to believe that any measuring device,
or collection of measuring devices, could tell you all you need to
know about how something sounds. Faith and a fair bit of arrogance.

what a ****

Just for a moment I thought you were misspelling again. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:51:55 GMT, wrote:


Please print out this post and keep it handy for future reference, since
you
are either the victim of short term memory loss, a deliberate liar, or
just
plain stupid, one would think that by now some of this would have sunk in
by
now. Since it hasn't, you obviously need some form of quick reference. I
consider it my duty to help the learning disabled, which may very well be
the case for George the Audio Ignorant. Most likely he is some sort of
savant when it comes to language but in all other matters, he's just
barely
smart enough to live.

That's very good, Mike.

It's easy considering what I was up against.

Very good debating trade stuff.

I don't do debating trade stuff.

Arnie will be
sitting at your feet soon, which position won't please him one little
bit.

I don't know, which position doesn't please you?

Is Middius paying you?
Do you find George's constant stream of lies and hate to be somehow
endearing?

None of this has to do with Arnie.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:59:42 GMT, wrote:


Restraint? In what sense?

Well, he hasn't abused anyone or used obscenities. Given the
provocation on RAO that constitutes considerable restraint.

Whoopdedo. It's OK to lie and distort the truth as long as you don't use
obscenities?

Methinks your moral compass is broken.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:57:30 GMT, wrote:


Faith is the thing you have to have to believe that 2 components with a
variance of .1 db could sound different when driving normal speakers and
not
clipping.

Faith is what you'd have to have to believe that any measuring device,
or collection of measuring devices, could tell you all you need to
know about how something sounds. Faith and a fair bit of arrogance.


Since you admitted you don't know much about technology, your previous
statement was an act of faith. Measurement equipment is far more senistive
than the human ear. Then of course there's the actual DBT's that have shown
in EVERY SINGLE CASE that differences that small result in a score of no
difference. There's also the fact that when differnces are enough to be
recognized in a DBT and then equalized to make them within that tolerance,
again, no difference.

Given the universal acceptance of DBT's for audio by the researchers, why is
it that anyone would doubt that they have shown what the tolerances are for
what constitutes audible difference? The old crap about "because I know
what I heard" just doesn't cut it since we know that when listening sighted
we don't always know what we heard. That is the fact of the matter and all
the denial in the world doesn't change it.

For those who reject that proper measurements don't reveal enough about a
piece of audio equipment, all they need to do is come up with a way that
gives answers that are as relaible as those from DBT's. Since they don't do
that. it seems fair to assume that they can't.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Sillybot continues his disinformation campaign.

is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files.

Silly 'borg, those aren't real DBTs.

Atkinson has programmed you well, Middius.

Trouble is that the last time I challenged him on this
point, he was forced to dissemble.

Middius - inferior clone of a dissembler.

wrote in message
.net
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:59:42 GMT,
wrote:
Restraint? In what sense?

Well, he hasn't abused anyone or used obscenities. Given
the provocation on RAO that constitutes considerable
restraint.

Whoopdedo. It's OK to lie and distort the truth as long
as you don't use obscenities?

Methinks your moral compass is broken.

Given how thoroughly Packer has sucked up the Middius lie,
you're understating the facts again, Mike!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Sillybot continues his disinformation campaign.

is that I have done DBTs.
They've been of audio files.

Silly 'borg, those aren't real DBTs.

Atkinson has programmed you well, Middius.

Trouble is that the last time I challenged him on this
point, he was forced to dissemble.

Middius - inferior clone of a dissembler.

Good heavens..ABX of audio files isn't a form of double-blind
testing?

Someone had best alert the authorities. Perhaps start
with the codec testers on hydrogenaudio.org.

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...p?showforum=40

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295





--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow