Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125548644.079321.314910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just a note about the "5000:00 $ cheque"
> In the 4 decades of ABX existence the only available reports by a
> thumping majority are" No difference-it all sounds the same"- whatever
> is being tested.
> Why should wires be different?. The 5000.00 $ stays safe in the
> cloud-cuckoo land.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
They're keeping it at your house?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125519227.462443.105360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ScottW. says: (Aug.31):
> You said:
> "What you did was cherry pick a small slice of data and provide a
> reference that comes up empty with a google search."
> Yes you're quite right. I had to be very diligent to find a positive
> result for abxing component comparison. What it shows is that only
> exceptionally gifted individuals can surmount the barrier that ABXing
> poses to recognition of differences. Yes, I had to cherry pick. Can you
> do any better and quote one single published ABX comparison of ANY
> audio components whatsoever where MAJORITY of panelists recognized the
> difference. Not the web spoutings please but printed, published
> articles as is the practice in any reputable research (Journal,
> author(s), vol, year, month, pages)
> You said:
> "Your search - L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge cable,
> ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83 - did not match any documents.
> So I don't have access to the original data".
> I'll try to restrain my impatience, be nice and polite, and teach you
> elementaries of research before you assume again that your opponent is
> an idiot spouting idiotic arguments- an assumption which
> 1) reflects on the way you yourself think
> 2) gives you licence for filthy, offensive language.
> It is a mystery to me why you would assume that my very clear reference
> ("The Stereo Review" '03, August and pages) was to a website and
> not to a magazine. Familiarise yourself with the references listed at
> the end of any article in any professional journal- or at least look at
> your undergrad textbook at the end of the chapters. (have you still got
> it?) They are not to the web, sir.
> You said:
> "Now you're stating there were repeat trials for the subject golden
> ear
> which is EXACTLY what I said was required to confirm the results.
> Try to be explicit in your original post or provide accessible
> references and we won't have this problem."
> If you think I have nothing better to do but to retype for your
> convenience an article that I myself had to find and to which I gave
> you clear directions you obviously have no clue about the normal
> professional mag. practice. You have another think coming; and then
> consult a friend.
> I said:
>> I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
>> shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
>> clear reference to it)
> You answered: "Like I'm sitting on a
> stack of 20 year old Stereo Reviews".
>
> 3 years ago I was on holidays in a very small town. The local Public
> Library got a copy of this article for me from the major Library in a
> bigger town. You want to voice opinions then learn how to search
> sources. Your undergrad. textbook is not enough.
> It is not my fault that except for Sean Olive the DBT component
> comparisons stopped appearing in printed publications since 1989.
> Complain to the usenet objectivists, not to me
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Perhaps they stopped publishing them because it's boring to find out that
most gear does IN FACT sound alike.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125528901_389@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:AboRe.4779$9i4.1670@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125517883_111@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:EQmRe.4733$9i4.1860@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125505407_1981@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ZzkRe.4671$9i4.2280@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9Q1Re.4720$FW1.2319@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:1125425689.386705.286020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> NYOB says: (Google message 12, Aug. 29)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> cables
>>>>>>>>> where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In
>>>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>>>> wire
>>>>>>>>> is wire."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias
>>>>>>>>> controlled'
>>>>>>>>> (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and
>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>> else in audio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've pointed you in the right direction. You can lead a man to
>>>>>>>> knowledge but you can't make him think.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Where are the reliable bias controlled comparisons that show some
>>>>>>>> other method is better or even as good?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
>>>>>>>>> report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing,
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twiice
>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>> to reemerge after a suitable interval.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not wanting to engage you in endless hairsplitting and denials is
>>>>>>>> my personal preference.
>>>>>>>> It's like trying to argue with a borna again Christian on the
>>>>>>>> non-existence of God. It's pointless. You will never admit that
>>>>>>>> ABX is the standard and that is relaible. You simply deny.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
>>>>>>>>> "test" work?
>>>>>>>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>>>>>>> P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same
>>>>>>>>> gauge
>>>>>>>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>>>>>>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the
>>>>>>>>> ABX
>>>>>>>>> obstacle race.
>>>>>>>>> So much for "anyone,ever"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't really understand that 81% is not good enough and that
>>>>>>>> while it might be an interesting footnote it needs to repeated to
>>>>>>>> insure they weren't just lucky guesses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We just showed you, SOMEONE HAD. 90 trials, 81%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What you showed was that people can sometimes guess well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The odds are much higher that the result was not guesswork than
>>> that the results were guesswork.
>>> Its so much fun watching you cling to your religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>> Wrong again, but thanks for admitting you're as desparate as Ludo.
>>
>> The wire being compared was sufficiently different in construction that
>> differences would be expected.
>>
>
> Ok, So, high end wire can sound different. Thanks
>
>
It sounds different from 24 AWG wire, but not from wire OF SIMILAR
CONSTRUCTION AND GAUGE. I've said this repeatedly.

High price wire of 12, 14, or 16 AWG does not sound different than 12,14, or
16 AWG that can be bought at Home Depot for a few cents per foot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125538537_713@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>
> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
> news:1doRe.4780$9i4.4302@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125517948_115@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>>>
>>> "nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:QSmRe.4735$9i4.3522@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> <elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:1125469644.662121.163990@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Mr Le Gal (Google message 86, Aug 30) quotes Greenhill's final
>>>>> comments
>>>>> on his cable test as a rejoinder to my text in my reply to Mr. NYOB:
>>>>> "P.S. To prevent you from quoting phony references again here is one
>>>>> for you to digest: (L. Greenhill, Monster vs Radio Shack:same gauge
>>>>> cable, ABX/DBT comparison Stereo Review '83)
>>>>>> Three out of 15 panelists scored correctly well over 50% and one had
>>>>>> 81% positive result. Which proves that a few can surmount even the
>>>>>> ABX obstacle race.
>>>>> So much for "anyone,ever" (Mr.NYOB said that no one ever heard
>>>>> difference between cables under ABX)
>>>>> For Greenhill's comments refer to mr. Le Gal's message.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what else is knew Mr Le Gal? Greenhill, a good 'objectivist"
>>>>> that he was provided a nice, objectivist comment to suit the nice,
>>>>> objectivist mag. "The Stereo Review". Indeed the *majority*of
>>>>> his panel had 50% or less corrects- under ABX/DBT it all sounded the
>>>>> same to them. Just as happened in all the other trials of amps,
>>>>> preamps, cdplayers and dacs up to and including a very, properly
>>>>> designed loudspeaker trial by Sean Olive (JAES,vol.51, No.9, p.806).
>>>>> You ignored however the interesting part
>>>>> Greenhill found one consistently accurate panellist scoring 81%, in 5
>>>>> out of 6 trials, of 15 tests ech, called him the "golden ear" and
>>>>> observed: "Obviously certain listeners whether through talent,
>>>>> training or experience can hear small differences between
>>>>> components.
>>>>> But the majority_ etc" He had two others who came very close to that
>>>>> high score but said nothing about it. Instead, like all the other
>>>>> proctors in similar trials, he created through a "mix them all
>>>>> together" statistical sleight of hand a fictional Mr Average, who did
>>>>> not hear much.
>>>>> The fact though was that SOME could overcome the handicap of the DBT
>>>>> protocol and did well. Better than I would have done because every
>>>>> time
>>>>> I tried DBTiing with an ABX model I found that after four trials I no
>>>>> longer knew if it was Rimski Korsakoff or his cockerel that composed
>>>>> the snippet. But even if only one panelist hears a difference with
>>>>> statistically significant consistency then the difference is out
>>>>> there,
>>>>> real to him. That it may not be audible to a thousand others is not of
>>>>> the slightest relevance to an individual making his high-end choices.
>>>>> A virtuoso doesn't care if anyone else hears the difference between
>>>>> his Strad and a music store violin. (I wonder if he'd pass an ABX or
>>>>> if one of our "scientists" could provide measured specs. for the two?)
>>>>> In his conclusions Greenhill did not comment about this
>>>>> contradiction between his results and his "golden ear" comments.
>>>>> One year ago in the RAHE he was invited by his editor Mr. Atkinson to
>>>>> elucidate but he chose discreet silence.
>>>>> I can already hear the parrot cry (I do not mean you Mr. Le Gal):
>>>>> "I do not like this result. I want a repeat, and then a repeat again
>>>>> and again till Mr. Golden Ear gives in and signs up to my revealed
>>>>> faith."
>>>>> Funnily enough the same people
>>>>> are perfectly happy with Greenhill's very scrupulous statistical
>>>>> protocol- as long as it gives them the results they desire and wish
>>>>> for.
>>>>> Ludovic Mirabel
>>>>>
>>>> Some people are not smart enough to know that the tests you cite are in
>>>> line with good guesses.
>>>
>>> Like if you scored more tham 100 on an IQ test.
>>>
>>>
>> I suppose I could deliberately get some answers wrong, but what would be
>> the point?
>>
>> That you don't understand or don't care that wire is wire is noted.
>>
>
> you earlier said that
> wire is wire, but only if its of the same construction
>
>
And I also said that nobody was arguing that wire couldn't sound differnt if
it was differnt enough from some other wire. 24 AWG is very different from
16 AWG. Still only one person appeared to notice.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Hey, look -- the drunk at the end of the bar is awake. Here he comes. I hope he
doesn't beg us to buy him more drinks.

>>To recap: You've admitted you're not involved in the cable business in any
>>way, and you don't plan to be. You yourself have never paid a lot for cables,
>>so you don't have any personal involvement to defend or avenge. All you were
>>left with was the supposed "evidence" that some unnamed and unsummonable
>>individuals got taken and presumably were chagrined as a result. But you can't
>>tell us a thing about these individuals. So the only motivation left is the
>>'borg one: If it's expensive, it's bad. Period.

>You always were a dumbass, Gorge.

Gross! The drunk is puking on me. Somebody get me some towels.

>The objectivist position is that if
>it's expensive, it should justify that expense in terms of its sound
>quality.

That is where we started, you besotted nincompoop. This is what happens if you
sleep off your hangover during the beginning of the conversation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4316ee03.2244945@news.iprimus.com.au

> Well, you do, anyway. My point was that it's impossible
> not to be influenced by others.

Right, people like Middius write thousands of posts for RAO,
with absolutely zero expectation of influencing anybody.

If you believe that...

> There's a saying: "Any
> conviction gains infinitely the moment another begins to
> believe in it."

The infinitely part is obviously hyperbole, but large and
finite is more accurate and significant.

> You could also say, "Every conviction is
> subject to doubt the moment someone expresses a contrary
> opinion."

See above.

> George claims a negative review wouldn't affect
> his listening pleasure.

George makes many improbable claims, this is just one more.

> I don't believe it, but I'd like to hear other input.

I don't know if I can influence you, Paul. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

In article <1125475163.576757.110960@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
elmir2m@pacificcoast.net wrote:


> I did not invent Greenhill's "Golden Ear" or Greenhill's statistics. I
> *quoted* from that impeccably objectivist writer who moderated and
> reported the Stereo Review cable test.


Ludovic's *quoted* results are pure fabrications. See below.


> You are also taking him for a village moron and insulting his statistics'
> protocol which for an objectivist, with an axe to grind, was quite scrupulous
> (read it!!!). I suspect that he forgot more statistics than you had ever
> known. I learnt mine as an employee of the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. where
> double blind tests were *first ever* used.


If Ludovic understood statistical science, he would recognize that
Greenhill's Stereo Review article is not an example of good statistical
work. I used to wonder if Greenhill intended that article as a
hoax---it's that bad--- but now I am resigned to the idea that he was
serious.


> I must acknowledge that I admire your temerity in- how shall I put it?-
> shooting your mouth off without first looking up the source (I gave
> clear reference to it)


See below---what more can I say?.


> Greenhill's "Golden Ear" did not "come at 81% one time" Mr,
> Scott W. There were six different cable comparison tests consisting of
> 15 trials each. The "Golden Ear" got 15 out of 15 in four of them,
> 12 in one, and 10 in one. Hence 83%-get it?



Actually the so-called "Golden Ear" got 15 of 15 in _two_ (not four) sets
of trials; he got 12 in three sets, and 10 in one.

So much for Ludovic's high standards for accurate reporting.



Even those two perfect scores are not so impressive.

One of the two perfect scores for Listener J (the alleged "Golden Ear")
was on the first test (Monster vs 24 awg, pink noise, levels unmatched).
Ten of the eleven listeners got 15 of 15 on that, and the other listener
got 14 of 15; that was an overall rate of 164/165 (more than 99%).

The other perfect score for Listener J was a similar test (16 awg vs 24
awg, pink noise, levels unmatched). Greenhill gave scores for only nine
listeners (who all got 14 or 15) for an overall rate exceeding 98%.

High scores on such easy tests are not necessarily evidence of exceptional
ability. By adding those scores to results from other tests Greenhill
inflated the combined score, whether or not it even it made sense to
combine the scores in the first place. That's rather weak support for
"Golden Ear" status.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125512284.776994.124050@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:YqbRe.99627$Ep.64584@lakeread02...
>> >
>> > "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1125463223_8687@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>> >>
>> >> "ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:EdaRe.99623$Ep.5498@lakeread02...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:1125442034_8269@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You just said earlier "WHERE ANYONE EVER HEARD A DIFFERENCE"
>> >>>
>> >>> Come on Art... a perfectly random trial will have half the
>> >>> participants
>> >>> over 50%.
>> >>> One coming in at 81% one time doesn't sound like its outside the
>> >>> expected
>> >>> distribution for random responses of 15 participants.
>> >>
>> >> Bad work, you fiind one person who can hear, and fourteen
>> >> who can't, test them, then disregard the result of that one, for
>> >> the deficiencies of the other fourteen.
>> >
>> > Back to school you ole fart. Enroll in probability 101
>> >
>> > Look at it this way. Test the same guy 15 times.
>> > He just might do very well one of those 15 times.
>> > Was his hearing better that one time than all the others?
>>
>> That is not the way to look at it.
>> That is one person, he is unique.
>> The question is whether he heard differences.
>
> Exactly. And now Ludovic has clarified that there were repeat trials
> and his 83% number is a composite from all the trials...not just one
> trial.
>
> In the end... he has indicated they did EXACTLY what I said was
> necessary to provide proof. Although 10 responses per trial is a bit
> low...being able to
> respond accurately in repeat trials is definitely significant.
> Being able to respond accurately in one trial is not.
>
>>
>> > Its really just a matter of binary probability.
>> > Give someone enough tries and they will get a decent
>> > percentage right. Most tests are done to 90%
>> > or 95% confidence. That still means that 1 of 10
>> > or 1 of 20 times the results will be a false positive.
>> > So you can see 1 positive subject out of 15 subjects
>> > could very well be due to chance.
>>
>> sure, but chances are very substantial that one person heard differences
>> and
>> fourteen did not.
>
> the initial 83% number was insufficient data to make that claim and I
> still
> can't access the original article.
>
>> Just cause differences are there, doesn't mean that everyone
>> has the capacity to recognize them.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> chances are one out of fifty that any one person has at least a 132 IQ.
>
> Yes... but a single IQ test of 10 questions won't guarantee you found
> him.
>
>>
>> chances are pretty good that at least one person in a group of fifty has
>> an IQ of 132.
>
> Sure...and probably 3 in 50 will ace a 10 question IQ test. Now what?
>
>>
>> but those are two different issues.
>>
>>
>> > He must be tested again and the odds
>> > of him succeeding again due to chance go to 1 in 100
>> > or 1 in 400.
>> > Now thats proof.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Not everyone is equal.
>> >
>> > Never said they were.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> If we knew the number of trials we could figure it out exactly but
>> >>> reality is...
>> >>> one positive trial doesn't prove anything, even one 100% correct.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> It proves it for that one person.
>> >
>> > Not true. We can actually expect one or even 2 persons to get
>> > lucky in a group of 15 with a 90% confidence test. Its the odds.
>> > Let him repeat the test. If he is truly gifted he should
>> > be able to repeat. If not... then it was probably random chance or
>> > luck.
>> >
>>
>> even with one run of tests the odds are very substantial
>> that it was not chance.
>
>
> Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
> don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
> you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
> 15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
> of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
> I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
> 8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
> of tests.
>
> Heres a good tutorial.
>
> http/www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html

By my math, I get 5.5% chance of getting at least 8 out of 10 right, and the
chance that at least one out of 15 will do that well is 57%

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1125587561_2115@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>
> >> I think the word falsely should be replaced with
> >> erroneously.
>
> > Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part.
>
> Delusions of omniscience and all that noted.
>
> > Even granting the assumption that someone
> > did send it to him, he accused at least
> > ten different people of being that person, without ANY
> > evidence at all.
>
> There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack, the
> past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable, the
> technical skills it took to launch it, the people who tried
> to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody, Art.
>
> > And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir.
> > you would think he would know the difference
> > between waht a child and what an adult looks like.
>
> The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person
> changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one
> day.
>
>
> > Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full
> > of holes and contradictions.
>
> Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made the
> story up had plenty of holes in them.
>
> Two words: Jamie Benchimol.
>
>
>
Two more words: "Leon North", the self-appointed, self-proclaimed,
uncredentialed "internet expert".
>
>
Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that "Leon North" made his
*first ever* Usenet appearance by posting to RAO on September, 11, 2001?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:39:03 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:


>> Well, it's useful work. And much needed.
>
>I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
> ;-)

I believe he does excellent woodwork, but it's bit hard to demonstrate
on Usenet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

paul packer said:

> >> Well, it's useful work. And much needed.
> >
> >I would appreciate that he shows, sometime, other talents...
> > ;-)
>
> I believe he does excellent woodwork, but it's bit hard to demonstrate
> on Usenet.

The more important aspect of my "work" is that Krooger gets so battered,
he has to summon a small army of sockpuppets to run interference for him.
He even tried to get duh-Mikey to be a sockpuppet, but the disguise fell
away in a short time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125587561_2115@spool6-east.superfeed.net

>> I think the word falsely should be replaced with
>> erroneously.

> Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part.

Delusions of omniscience and all that noted.

> Even granting the assumption that someone
> did send it to him, he accused at least
> ten different people of being that person, without ANY
> evidence at all.

There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack, the
past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable, the
technical skills it took to launch it, the people who tried
to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody, Art.

> And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir.
> you would think he would know the difference
> between waht a child and what an adult looks like.

The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A person
changes from an illegal subject to a legal subject in one
day.


> Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full
> of holes and contradictions.

Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made the
story up had plenty of holes in them.

Two words: Jamie Benchimol.

> Maybe someday you will wake up and see that.

Given all the Middius lies you've swallowed Art, if anybody
needs to wake up, its you. Remember, you've already
publicly accepted all of Middius' most reprehensible posts
including his pedophile fantasies, his forgeries and his
outright lies.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125588082_2143@spool6-east.superfeed.net

>> It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of
>> the claims.

> if not class envy,

Art, you're of a lower class than many of the people you
accuse of class envy. Why make yourself look bad by bringing
this issue up?

>it is about hearing caability envy.

Art, you're of an age that puts your hearing abilities below
many of the people you accuse of class envy. Why make
yourself look bad by bringing this issue up?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125588448_2153@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>
> Its about content. Yours is woefully lacking

If irony killed.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On 31 Aug 2005 07:39:29 -0700, George Middius
<George_member@newsguy.com> wrote:


>You could always write an irate letter to the editor demanding they hire an
>independent reviewer to do a follow-up. I think Ferstler might be available....

Now that's what I call independent!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1125588537_2157@spool6-east.superfeed.net

>> High price wire of 12, 14, or 16 AWG does not sound
>> different than 12,14, or 16 AWG that can be bought at
>> Home Depot for a few cents per foot.

> Most high price wire is so different from what you are
> talking about.

Nope. Since when have you been qualified to make technical
judgements about wire, Art?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 06:59:11 GMT, "nyob123@peoplepc.com"
<NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote:


>>> I'm not being taken in by fraudulent claims, so I'm not a victim.
>>> I also don't have the kind of resources one would need to fight and win
>>> such a case.
>>> It might be interesting to see if there's a firm that would consider a
>>> pro bono case, perhaps a class action suit against Atkinson, et al.
>>
>> Surely there must be such a law firm as Class Envy and Borg
>>
>>
>If you think my disdain for SP and their delude believers has to with class
>envy, you are most assuredly wrong. I just don't like trying to decieve
>people. I think the best thing for audio magazines or any hobby magazine is
>to maximize the enjoyment by giving recomendations that will actually
>improve performance. If there were something besides loudspeakers, room
>treatment and EQ that would likely improve the sound of a system, I'd be all
>for it. The simple fact is there aren't.
>
>I certainly don't begrudge anyone spending as much as they can afford on
>whatever they want for whatever reason they want, but I do think they ought
>to be getting the best possible advice before they make the purchase.
>
>Whatever advances that might be possible will most likely come from
>somewhere other than the ultra expensive, small volume manufacturers, since
>they don't have the resources for the research that would produce such
>improvements.
>
>When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell plenty?
>
>It's not about envy, it's always been about the truth of the claims.

Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the claims made
by mini and micro systems manufacturers and retailers that these
systems are true hi-fi, sound brilliant and will fulfil all your
expectations about sound reproduction forever. Surely if you're
looking for charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them
hang out. Personally I don't believe that expensive cables make much
if any difference, but they do after all appeal to the well heeled
afficianado, not the first time buyer unable to make an informed
decision. What galls me about the marketing of micros, midis & minis
is that it effectively syphons off all the potential customers for
real hi-fi (or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more
effectively). I wonder how many innocents have listened to their first
mini system plastered with the word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if
that's hi-fi it's waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound
like a real band."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

"paul packer" <packer@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:4316efbd.2687310@news.iprimus.com.au

> Very good. But I wonder if you object as strongly to the
> claims made by mini and micro systems manufacturers and
> retailers that these systems are true hi-fi, sound
> brilliant and will fulfil all your expectations about
> sound reproduction forever.

These claims are probably relevant for certain people.

> Surely if you're looking for
> charlatans in the audio industry this where most of them
> hang out.

I don't know if that is a slam dunk.

> Personally I don't believe that expensive
> cables make much if any difference,

Notice the hedge, apparently faith springs eternal.

> but they do after all
> appeal to the well heeled afficianado, not the first time
> buyer unable to make an informed decision.

I don't know about your neck of the woods, but high priced
cables can be found in just about every audio retail store
in the US, including electronics stores and appliance
stores.

> What galls me
> about the marketing of micros, midis & minis is that it
> effectively syphons off all the potential customers for
> real hi-fi

People who buy this stuff are looking for a packaged
solution. Where they fade out, HTIB systems pick up.

>(or at least it did, until HT began to do that even more
>effectively).

Higher-end HT seems to be shaping up as being like a better
set of speakers for that shiney new HDTV.


> I wonder how many innocents have
> listened to their first mini system plastered with the
> word "Hi-Fi" and thought, "Well if that's hi-fi it's
> waaaay overrated. I thought it was s'posed to sound like
> a real band."

Probably not many at all. Who would be that naive?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<torresists@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1125593580.251408.118960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Clyde Slick" <YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1125587561_2115@spool6-east.superfeed.net
>>
>>>> I think the word falsely should be replaced with
>>>> erroneously.
>>
>>> Wrong, it was a willful act of deception on Arny's part.
>>
>> Delusions of omniscience and all that noted.
>>
>>> Even granting the assumption that someone
>>> did send it to him, he accused at least
>>> ten different people of being that person, without ANY
>>> evidence at all.
>>
>> There was plenty of evidence - the nature of the attack,
>> the past attacks of a similar nature that were tracable,
>> the technical skills it took to launch it, the people
>> who tried to cover it up. You're as dirty as anybody,
>> Art.
>>
>>> And it wasn't kiddie porn anyway, according to Arnir.
>>> you would think he would know the difference
>>> between waht a child and what an adult looks like.
>>
>> The legal definition of kiddie porn is quite exact. A
>> person changes from an illegal subject to a legal
>> subject in one day.
>>
>>
>>> Obviously it was all a lie anyway, His story is so full
>>> of holes and contradictions.
>>
>> Not at all. Furthermore the attempts to show that I made
>> the story up had plenty of holes in them.

>> Two words: Jamie Benchimol.

> Two more words: "Leon North", the self-appointed,
> self-proclaimed, uncredentialed "internet expert".

Yes, he was Jamie's right hand boy.

> Does anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that "Leon
> North" made his *first ever* Usenet appearance by posting
> to RAO on September, 11, 2001?

Very odd, if he was truely an internet expert.

His tone suggested that he had origins similar to that of
who, Fear3000?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > Maybe for 100% correct or even 9 of 10. But for 8 of 10 the numbers
> > don't bear you out. In fact... in one test run... say 10 responses...
> > you have ~4.3% chance of getting 8 of 10 just due to chance. So with
> > 15 subjects we would expect that 64% of the time (more than half) one
> > of the 15 is gonna get 8 right.
> > I'm sorry but you have less than 1 chance in 2 that the 1 person with
> > 8 right (of 15 who were tested) is truly golden eared after a one run
> > of tests.
> >
> > Heres a good tutorial.
> >
> > http/www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/statistics.html
>
> By my math, I get 5.5% chance of getting at least 8 out of 10 right, and the
> chance that at least one out of 15 will do that well is 57%
>
> Norm Strong

You're correct. I only did the 8 and swagged a mulitplier.

ScottW