"I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!"

One supposes, according to this little pet theory of yours, that nothing can be verified about any audio cable, speaker or component or tweak. Certainly that cannot be true.

Maybe you're overlooking the Nocebo effect.

Quote:

Yet articles like Lavorgna's basically say that scientific authority in this case is *beside the point* for the audio hobby!

I thought it was humorous and I enjoyed reading it. I suppose if the article had been presented as a doctoral thesis I would have significant issues with it, but as an opinion piece it was right on and accurately portrayed the behavior I've seen on this forum.

I wonder why it is in a majority of the cases that great musicians use such crappy playback rigs in their own lives.
We see it over and over.

Indeed, I noticed that myself!

I don't think it requires high level musicianship to be a 'better' listener.

I agree. No matter how many times I've repeated this, it seems to be beyond most people's grasp of understanding: listening to audio and attempting to discern differences by introducing various changes, is a skill in itself (it is numerous skills, in fact, within the greater skill set - hence another reason why audiophiles "hear differently"). Generally speaking, you are not born with it (so-called "golden ears". The term used to deride those who have such skills, by those who don't have them). And it has nothing to do with your ability to hear things in general. Or the reduction in your HF hearing ability due to ageing (as most musical information is not in that region, this generally has little bearing in one's ability to discern one audio device from another).

It is an old and unfounded myth that a musician will have superior deductive skills in audio than a non-musician; be that an audiophile or not. I believe Ethan is perpetuating this myth because it serves his ego to do so. On numerous occasions, he has proven unable to hear what most audiophiles can hear quite clearly. In response to that, he's seen attacking the hearing ability of audiophiles here on the basis that they are not musicians, and that his hearing ability is superior to theirs, because he is. This is not a jab at Ethan's hearing ability in general, but a comment on his experience (in which, unfortunately, belief system plays a part). To understand this myth, I tested many musician friends over the years; sighted, blind, you name it. Not only did I find they did not have superior discerning skills when it came to judging audio changes, but they seem to have -worse- on average, than myself, or other audiophiles I did tests with. Despite that when I started out, I too had expectations their audio discernment skills would be superior.

People think because they familiarize themselves with musical details, have a "musical ear" as it's called, they can better discern what's going on in audio, because that's also about "musical details". Wrong. Very simply, like audiophiles, musicians train themselves to hear things specific to their experiences - ie. they might hear an instrument is off-pitch, whereas a non-musician audiophile might not hear anything amiss. Because he simply doesn't know what to look for. He has never been trained to look for those things. In the same fashion, an audiophile who is used to hearing the kinds of differences produced by an amp, a green pen, or the direction of a cable - is likely to recognize those differences long before a musician who has no such experience in this ever would. A musician who is an audiophile might do better with audiophile-type experiences, but just being a musician and listening loudly to your instrument does nothing to train you for the skills you may require to listen to audio differences that without such training, might be relatively quite subtle! This truism is repeated throughout most human activities! The audio hobby is not an exception.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
here's an intelligent counterpoint to Lavorgna's frankly dumb but not atypical (for the high-end) article:

http://www.goodsound.com/editorial/200905.htm

I think it fair to point out, Mr. Sullivan, that while you may agree with the sentiments in the linked article, neither the publication concerned, nor its siblings, employ blind testing to reach review judgments. The reviewers use exactly the same methodology as Stereophile's, though, as I argued in the debate at the April Show in Montreal, with perhaps less rigor.

As part of its reviews Soundstage! farms out some of its loudspeaker measurements to the NRC, which I don't recall Stereophile doing. So 'exactly the same methodology', no, I'm afraid not...

Yes, Soundstage does contract measurements of loudspeakers to the NRC, though they do not publish measurements for all of the speakers they review, just a selection. But that is besides the point: the argument concerned listening tests, not loudspeaker measurements, and in that respect, by "identical methodology," I thought it obvious that I was referring to the listening that is performed in order to reach review conclusions.

Quote:
nor do you necessarily win in the 'rigor' department.

Why not? I gave my reasoning in the Montreal debate in some detail and you can view the entire session starting at http://thecanadianpublic.com/?p=49 . What did I say in that session that you take exception to, Mr. Sullivan?

Quote:
You also neglect to point out that the author acknowledges that Soundstage hasn't often done DBTs, for reasons of practicality.

Surely it doesn't matter _why_ his reviewers don't perform blind testing, only that they don't.

Quote:
But he indicates he's trying to change that...

Talk is cheap, as they say, Mr. Sullivan. For a publisher to claim the moral or scientific high ground based on what he intends to do some day, when the "practical" problems can be overcome, is, for want of a better word, bullshit.

Quote:
Seems a rather progressive view...

As I said, talk is cheap.

Quote:
and rather different from Stereophile's stance, which is perhaps exemplified best in this quote attributed to you: "I regard 'double-blind comparative listening tests' as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel." (Stereophile, December 1996, page 23).

Yes. I wrote that statement in the context of having actually taken part in as a listener in supposed "scientific" tests organized by well-known "objectivists" that were nothing more than demonstrations of applied gamesmanship, where any semblance of scientific rigor was thrown out in order to make the results conform to a predetermined outcome. See, for example, http://www.stereophile.com/historical/107/. The "tests" were, in short, nothing more than shell games.

Quote:
Is that quote accurate (I got it off The Audio Critic, which I can't consider unbiased in the matter)...

At least you admit that Peter Aczel has an agenda, Mr. Sullivan.

Quote:
do you consider Mr. Schneider to be an agenda-driven scoundrel taking last refuge in DBTs?

Personally, I think Mr. Schneider is faced with falling revenues and readership and is trying to reinvigorate his ventures for legitimate business reasons. Certainly doesn't mean that he is a "scoundrel." And as I said, it remains to be seen if he does actually implement a blind testing regime.

Quote:
How about Sean Olive or JJ?

Neither is a scoundrel, Mr. Sullivan. Because _some_ practioners of so-called "scientific" tests are indeed "agenda-driven scoundrels" doesn't logically mean that _all_ are. That is yet another example of you trying to put words in my mouth.

Quote:
Speaking of which, since I at last have your attention, you might want to rein in the more rabid-dog Stereophile subscribers on the 'Interesting Papers' thread, who keep saying that 'j_j' is lying about his identity. It would only take a sentence from you to correct their severe misperception. Why have you not done so?

Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

While I rather quite understand not wanting to get caught in the crossfire, which posturing is this on my side?

I must say that I find Sasaudio's insistance that a very basic issue in signal processing isn't so. But, at least, that could be misunderstanding.

What I don't understand is "Michigan J. Frog" and his repeated, admitted stalking and harrassment. He adds nothing to the discussion, and both lies and defames more or less, it appears, as fast as he can type. This enlightens nobody, except to the character of the sock puppet and the human behind it.

Quote:

I suggest you take some law classes.

So, then you are a judge, with the power to make a formal ruling on this? You might, I don't know, be a lawyer. If you are, you can, I suppose, practice on the internet, but your claim to FACT in this matter shows that you represent your claim as an unappealed formal ruling.

Let's see it. Cite, please.

Quote:
While I rather quite understand not wanting to get caught in the crossfire, which posturing is this on my side?

Hey, "j_j". I think I can field that one. Read carefully. You might recognize this bit of posturing, because you just wrote it:

Quote:
What I don't understand is "Michigan J. Frog" and his repeated, admitted stalking and harrassment. He adds nothing to the discussion, and both lies and defames more or less, it appears, as fast as he can type. This enlightens nobody, except to the character of the sock puppet and the human behind it.

This is an off-topic ad hominem attack against me, without any direct provocation, which shows you adding nothing to the discussion in this thread, which is filled with lies about me "admitting" to something I never said, which is intended to defame me as fast as you can type, and enlightens nobody, except the character of the sock puppet or whatever is pulling the strings behind your pseudonym.

If you ever have to defend yourself in court before a judge for having libelled or defamed someone, and there's a good chance you will need to if this hasn't happened already, I strongly suggest you get a lawyer.

You really suck at presenting a reasonable case in defending yourself.

Quote:
I must say that I find Sasaudio's insistance that a very basic issue in signal processing isn't so. But, at least, that could be misunderstanding.

No more a "misunderstanding" than you distorting Dr. Kunchur's study in that thread. You seem to think you can insult everybody on this forum with impunity, that you are somehow exempt from engaging in the same actions you complain about, that everyone who takes issue with your words is out to "stalk and harass" you, and are under this misguided expectation that your opinions supersede that of all others. I'm sorry if you're having difficulty learning otherwise. This isn't Hydrogen Audio. You have no apotheosis here.

In keeping with your holier-than-thou attitude, you SPAMMED the forum yesterday, posting an exact duplicate of a message you had already posted. Simply because you didn't like the fact that other people posting to a thread causes your messages to move from the last position. (Is your next demand going to be that we all refrain from posting to a thread you've added to, until you get your desired response?) Then, because your message wasn't responded to by exactly who you wanted it responded by, you SPAMMED the forum again, with a repeat of the -same- message! Not only did you post the same message 3 times, but you actually had the nerve to demand of the person you wanted a reply from that he respond to you immediately. And you did this, because you did not get a response after 24hrs! That's quite the obsession you have, for a debate you just recently said you had nothing to add to. Which I think was the 10th time you said you were finished with that debate, and had nothing more to add to it. Anyway, I'm telling you all this to explain what "spamming" and "stalking" is to you, since you apply these terms to people who are -not- doing this, and hence don't seem to understand them.

Quote:
I wonder why it is in a majority of the cases that great musicians use such crappy playback rigs in their own lives.

On what do you base that? I have a lot of musician friends, and almost all have very high quality systems! Indeed, most recording studio owners are musicians, and they all appreciate good monitoring / playback. Have you ever heard a pair of Westlake monitors in a room lined with QRD diffusors?

Quote:
I don't think it requires high level musicianship to be a 'better' listener.

Requires? Maybe not. But a good musician is a much better appreciator. If a live performance is the reference by which all audio systems are judged, who is better to judge that than someone who plays every day in a professional orchestra?

Quote:
One is not required to be a winemaker to be a skilled taster, nor an expert chef to appreciate good food.

I agree with that, but it's not the same thing. Chef's do their work intellectually, without the physical and emotional interaction a musician has when playing. I've been watching the Food Network a lot lately, and experts like Bobby Flay don't need to taste their dishes as they work because they understand the chemistry. Versus a musician who obviously listens to every note played, adjusts micro-tuning as needed, and many other aspects of musicianship I could write literally 10,000 more words about.

As I recall the premise was that objectivists are cold unfeeling people who'd rather look at graphs than appreciate the emotional content of the music. That's pure bunk, and I argue the opposite. Of course you can't understand or accept this because (I assume) you are not a musician.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Speaking of which, since I at last have your attention, you might want to rein in the more rabid-dog Stereophile subscribers on the 'Interesting Papers' thread, who keep saying that 'j_j' is lying about his identity. It would only take a sentence from you to correct their severe misperception. Why have you not done so?

Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

All it takes is short answer from you to the question, Mr. Atkinson:

Is the person posting a 'J_J', the 'JJ' that *you know* to be James Johnston?

Why on earth would you NOT provide that simple affirmation?
It would be a simple statement of fact.

Your failure to stanch the flow of bile on this particular matter, from the posts of Frog and SAS, is itself a type of posturing, if not an expression of an 'agenda'. Failure to right an obvious wrong is cheap, too.

Quote:

Quote:
and rather different from Stereophile's stance, which is perhaps exemplified best in this quote attributed to you: "I regard 'double-blind comparative listening tests' as the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel." (Stereophile, December 1996, page 23).

Yes. I wrote that statement in the context of having actually taken part in as a listener in supposed "scientific" tests organized by well-known "objectivists" that were nothing more than demonstrations of applied gamesmanship, where any semblance of scientific rigor was thrown out in order to make the results conform to a predetermined outcome. See, for example, http://www.stereophile.com/historical/107/. The "tests" were, in short, nothing more than shell games.

Quote:

Quote:
Is that quote accurate (I got it off The Audio Critic, which I can't consider unbiased in the matter)...

At least you admit that Peter Aczel has an agenda, Mr. Sullivan.

I would 'admit' that you do too, to no less degree, Mr. Atkinson.

Quote:

Quote:
How about Sean Olive or JJ?

Neither is a scoundrel, Mr. Sullivan. Because _some_ practioners of so-called "scientific" tests are indeed "agenda-driven scoundrels" doesn't logically mean that _all_ are. That is yet another example of you trying to put words in my mouth.

I understand your point, Mr. Atkinson. But it might have more force if you or your magazine's support for DBTs was more than tepid at best. I can't say I get the impression that Stereophile's REAL stance is "We wholly support the use of DBTs, as long as they are GOOD ones."

Quote:

Quote:
Speaking of which, since I at last have your attention, you might want to rein in the more rabid-dog Stereophile subscribers on the 'Interesting Papers' thread, who keep saying that 'j_j' is lying about his identity. It would only take a sentence from you to correct their severe misperception. Why have you not done so?

Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That's a weak posture itself. You have no problem 'stepping into' puerility -- or even fomenting it on occasion -- on RAO (such as your recent attempt to point posters on that troll-infested forum to your debates on HA). And you aren't being asked to render an *opinion* here, you know as well as I there is no real 'debate' as to whether JJ is JJ, there are just bizarre posturings anti that from Frog and SAS. You are simply being asked to address a claim of fact that you KNOW to be true or false.

One sentence here, affirming that J_J is indeed the JJ you know, whom you have addressed familiarly on other threads and forums, who is indeed James Johnston, codec developer etc., is all it takes. That does not 'embroil' you in crossfire any more that affirming that indeed, John_Atkinsons is John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile or that Arny is Arny Kruger. And after all, you have now asserted that JJ 'is not a scoundrel', contrary to what Frog and SAS claim. You're halfway there.

Quote:
All it takes is short answer from you to the question, Mr. Atkinson:

Is my idol who hides behind pseudonyms like "J_J" and "Woodinville" the "Real Fake J_J" or the "Fake Real J_J"? As the all-seeing and all-knowing force of God, only you can answer this question for me and pull me out of this constant pain and misery I have been living under, ever since those meanies on your forum dared to question the identity of a person who absolutely refuses to directly identify himself in any of his messages, even once, no matter how many times he has been politely asked to do so. Although he is like a God to me, it is a bit unfortunate that unlike his detractors, he does not have the courage to identify himself in his posts, like a grown man. Let alone a professional man.

So this is why I must beg of you to do so for him! Please, I beg you Mr. Atkinson! Now that I again have your attention, please, please, for the love of all that is good in the world, I beg of you --- wait, did I say "beg"? No, forget that. I demand that you demonstrate the courage and integrity that the pseudonymous "j_j" lacks in confirming his real name and professional affiliation on the forum, and that you confirm his name and affiliation for him. I demand it! I don't care how many times you have already responded to me, I will not stop demanding this of you, from one thread to another on your site, until you give me the answer I want!! I am Krabapple, dammit! Nobody gives "Krabapple" the runaround, the brushoff, or the short shrift!

Good God, Krabby. You just added two more posts badgering JA with your silly little name fetish, that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread (or anything for that matter), after he already responded to it in this thread, and both he and I responded to your second complaint about this in the Interesting Papers thread. This is why I warned people before that you're a hostile troll, and responding to you would only be an invitation for abuse and frustration. You are only substantiating what I said.

You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

I assure you, you won't be missed.

Temper, temper "crabby", are you sure you're an adult or just posing? I wonder if you will hold your breath until you turn blue? If so, would you please take the next step after turning blue. That would be to continue holding your breath until you expire and go away. One can only hope.

Quote:

Quote:
Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

While I rather quite understand not wanting to get caught in the crossfire, which posturing is this on my side?

Posters are not required to post under their real names on this forum. Demands that you reveal your identity are inappropriate, as are demands you have made that Michigan J. Frog reveal his identity, if that is not indeed his identity. The cross-demands re: identity are merely adding too much noise for me to be able to readily comprehend the technical issue being discussed in this thread. Which is something that has intrigued me even since it was first explained to me by someone wearing a name tag that identified the bearer as "Stanley Lipshitz" and who even looked like Stanley. :-) To a first approximation, I believe that man was indeed Stanley Lipshitz, much as I believe you are the man I shared more than few beers with in Minnesota on 2001. (Of course, the majority of the cells in both our bodies has long since been replaced by others, so literally speaking, I am wrong even in that assumption.)

Quote:
I must say that I find Sasaudio's insistance that a very basic issue in signal processing isn't so. But, at least, that could be misunderstanding.

Personally, I find the improved ease of spatial representation of aural objects within the stereo image to be a consistently identifiable benefit of high sample-rate recordings, yet I don't see how this could be so if 44.kHz already offers angular resolution similar to the human limit. Perhaps it devolves to Peter Craven's hypothesis that with the higher sample rate the ear/brain is having to do less work to create the illusion of stereo image. If it is not _all_ imagination, of course. But as this isn't HA, I am allowed to offer hypotheses without having to provide evidence.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Posters are not required to post under their real names on this forum. Demands that you reveal your identity are inappropriate, as are demands you have made that Michigan J. Frog reveal his identity, if that is not indeed his identity.

Really?

I guess I missed that rule.

I submit that the rule you imply exists (it may, in which case I missed it) allows irresponsible behavior, and isolates people from responsibility for their actions.

It's your board, you get to run it how you like.

Quote:
Personally, I find the improved ease of spatial representation of aural objects within the stereo image to be a consistently identifiable benefit of high sample-rate recordings, yet I don't see how this could be so if 44.kHz already offers angular resolution similar to the human limit.

Well, I'll put it bluntly. It's easy to show that 10 microsecond interchannel time differences (which is the angular resolution issue you mention, to be clear, not the "single channel" claim now attributed to Dr. K.) are audible. I haven't run any extremely careful tests at 5 microseconds, but the fact that it's not even very hard to make such distinctions at 10 microseconds in a DBT (and even a pretty scrappy one) suggests that there's nothing extraordinary about the idea. Even us old guys can hear 10 microseconds. And that's on signals generated mathematically at 44.1/16, so there is NO question of ultrasonics involved. (yes, I checked the DAC, too)

Now, there are a host of other issues, especially with studio recordings, and with the way they are made, compressed, etc.

Until we can be sure that the high rate recording has exactly, precisely the same processing as the 16/44 one, we are on very thin ice.

The question of "single channel" delays such as attributed to Dr. K is much simpler. Adding in a second pulse (or copy of audio, or whatever) with a 5 microsecond delay creates a filter that has a zero at 100kHz, is down 6dB at 50, and down .9 dB at 20kHz. That is, for a signal with lots and lots of high frequency content, right on the proximate-comparison threshold. This doesn't prove that ultrasonic perception is NOT involved, but it does show that it isn't required, for a first-rate listener in a first-rate setup. Changes to the signal within the 20kHz band will suffice. Barely. Which is what 'threshold' is all about, of course.

Of course, if the second pulse is added and total energy isn't kept constant, then the question becomes a very simple one of the two-pulse system just having much more energy inside the 20kHz bandwidth. That is pretty easily audible, so I don't expect that's what happened.

Quote:
You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Could Stephen or John please clarify this?

Quote:

Don't play your typical semantic games, Scott.

No semantic games Steve, just calling you on your strawman. Fact is nothing in that article made any such claims that you are whining about. OTOH May did point out that Ethan actually did make such a claim. So I guess you think Ethan is an ass. Oh well, hope the two of you can work things out.

Quote:
The subjectivist claims and insinuation that 'objectivists' only care about graphs, measurements, and DBTs, rather than music, are as common and predictable as guano in a birdcage.

This thread is about a specific article. That article makes no such claim or inference.

Quote:
Lavorgna is peddling old canards...his only 'innovation' is to ludicrously suggest that now objectivists only care about 'sound', making them monkish, whereas true audiophiles care about 'music'.

That is a pretty weak attempt at bending his words into "It is impossible for objectivists to play music or care about music." and you accuse me of playing semantics. And so the straw man burns.

Quote:
Oh, *really*? So those hordes of sweaty, smelly middle aged
dudes I've seen at Stereophile-sponsored conventions , crowding into small, badly-treated rooms to hear overpriced audio jewelry -- they're all doing it to hear the *music*?

Who is being the ass by your definition now? I'll give you a hint. You. It's a good hint, hope you get it.

Quote:
And the fact that blind methods are an accepted part of wine tasting? 'BFD'? Wow, that's a stunning argument.

Man has been making wine for thousands of years. By all accounts quite well for at least several hundred years. Wine enthusiasts spend their time and money going on trips to vinyards and to specialty shops wine tasting and then building extensive collections of their favorite wines all with the labels in full view. Many publications offer reviews done under sighted conditions. makers of fine wines use time tested (not DB tested) methods of making wine. They all seem to be doing just fine enjoying their passion. Food critics and restaurant reviewers do their reviews under sighted conditions. Passionate lovers of food eat to the heart's delight all under sighted conditions. The culinary world does not revolve around blind testing. It is a trivial aspect of it at best. You'd have us believe that nothing ever tasted good before some one tried some blind testing? Should the wine enthusiasts tape over the labels of all their wines? should they not be allowed to have so much fun drinking wine with the labels attatched? should food lovers be lead to their tables blind folded? Yeah, BFD. I don't believe blind protocols have had much of an impact on the culinary world. I think people have been making and enjoying fine wine and fine food for years without the need or aid of blind protocols.

Quote:
How about the blinding of orchestral 'juries' when they are choosing new members? That involves evaluating musical performance, while recognizing the biasing factors of 'sighted' methods. BFD?

Well, I guess I'll just have to throw out all my orchestral recordings made with orchestras that didn't use such protocols at the time. They couldn't possibly have been any good. Yeah, BFD. I don't reject orchestral recordings becuase they didn't use blind protocols in their auditions. Musicians and orchestras did pretty well without blind protocols. Again I have to say BFD. Blind protocols have not revolutionized the sound of orchestras by any measure.

Quote:
You don't get it. The creationists are 'arguing' that scientific authority is not privelaged.

It isn't privilaged. There is no royalty in science. There are no no arguments by authority in science. Anyone with funds and ability can participate in science. Anyone with a reasonable argument or new evidence can challenge current scientific beliefs. and those beleifs have to stand up to all new evidence and arguments. They are not authoritative. science works by the auto-rejection of argument by authority.

Quote:
In other words, that their authority -- a book written thousands of years ago, not based on experiment or careful observation -- is actually just as good as science, when it comes to making claims about the natural world. Better, actually.

Clearly you don't get it. which worries me. The creationsist are arguing from authority not against authority. they are trying to pawn creationism as science without the goods so all they have is their alleged authority. If scientists made the same argument from authority they would have the same lack of credibility. Science isn't science when it argues from authority. The day scientists abandon their protocols and argue from authority will be the day they become worthless. So yes, I advocate the auto-rejection of argument by authority. argument from authority is the very thing science is supposed to protect us from. Both from within the world of science as from outside the world of science. A scientist who argues from authority is just a lazy person who has abandoned his dicipline and needs to be put to pasture.

Quote:

Thanks for making my argument for me. So, you agree that reflexive anti-authoritarianism is dumb, because some authority actually does have a sound basis?

No. I think the accpetance of argument from authority is dumb. I think science is there to protect us from such dumbness.

Quote:
Blind testing, btw, is backed up by scientific authority.

Actually it's backed by time tested evidence.

Quote:
Yet articles like Lavorgna's basically say that scientific authority in this case is *beside the point* for the audio hobby!

You still can't see the difference between a perceptual based hobby that is all about aesthetic values and science. Amazing given that you are a scientist.

Quote:
J Gordon Holt thinks that's idiotic and bad for the hobby, and so do I.

Interesting that J Gordon Holt, a guy who made a living doing reviews under sighted conditions thinks his life's work was bad for the hobby. Interesting that you think it is bad for the hobby despite your reluctance to use blind protocols in your buying decisions in audio.

Quote:
It doesn't matter whether I used blind tests to pick my gear (in fact I didn't. I didn't use auditioning, either.)

What matters is what claims are made about the sound, and by what method. Does the method used support the strength of the claim? If the method is sighted auditioning *alone*, the strength of the claim is hobbled and restricted from the start; the claim should be suited to the evidence, no more or less.

What claims have you seen me make about sound of my gear, Scott?

Now that is rich. Why is it that you don't make claims about sound? Those claims would be just opinions like everybody else's. Is it because you have no opinions about sound? I doubt that someone who "cares about sound" as you claim would do so sans any opinions about sound quality. Maybe, just maybe you have enough self awarness to realize that after years of being an ass to people who have offered their opinions about sound because of their lack of "scientific evidence" ::cough:: in the way of home brewed blind tests that you would be a pathetic hypocrite if you were to offer opinions with no more support than the ones you have shat upon. So you have painted yourself into a corner and are stuck with not being able to express opinions without being a raving hypocrite. Fortunately many of us enthusiasts are not strapped with that baggage and are free to offer subjective opinions to the world without being hypocritical in so doing. That is the sort of thing hobbyists tend to do. You know, share their enthusiasm over the pleasures their hobby gives them. You claim to know it don't you? You were insulted when you thought your passion for sound had somehow been questioned. To bad you can't talk about it without being a hypocrite. Maybe that is why you tend to be such a dick.

Quote:
Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. 'J_J', I have to say, I sometimes wonder whether you're putting people on, or whether you really intend for people to take you seriously, and really believe that they should. If its anything like the latter.... then stop with the egomaniacal posturing already! Thank you.

Quote:
I submit that the rule you imply exists (it may, in which case I missed it) allows irresponsible behavior, and isolates people from responsibility for their actions.

It's a good thing for you that it exists then, isn't it? It's also good for "Axon", "Krabapple", "Xenophanes", etc. etc.

Quote:

Quote:
You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Could Stephen or John please clarify this?

Michigan J. Frog does not have such authority. Having said that, I don't believe he claims to have such authority. I do agree, however, that Krabapple is walking on thin ice. I have sent Krabapple a PM, asking him to please keep his posts on topic. Krabapple has not read it, however.

So I ask again here: Krabapple, please read your PMs and please keep your posts on-topic. I'm having a very difficult time finding anything valuable or productive in your posts, but it's easy to point to examples of gratuitous insults and disrespect. If that behavior continues, we will have no problem deactivating your account.

As for the discussion of J_J's real name: I have no reason to believe J_J is anyone but who he says he is. I hear he's a pretty cool guy. I wish all the nonsense would end, and that we would move forward.

Quote:

Quote:
You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Could Stephen or John please clarify this?

Stephen has done so this morning, and I echo his sentiment. The only person who was banned from this forum was Carl Engbretsen, posting as "DUP." The reason he was ultimately banned was because _all_ he posted were attacks on others. The antagonists in this and other threads, you J_J, SASAudio, Michigan J. Frog, etc - may be extremely confrontational, but all of them also post useful and relevant posts on audio matters. The one exception is Krabapple, who only seems interested in flames and, unless I may have missed it, has not offered even one posting on a specific audio subject. That is what I interpret as "thin ice."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Personally, I find the improved ease of spatial representation of aural objects within the stereo image to be a consistently identifiable benefit of high sample-rate recordings, yet I don't see how this could be so if 44.kHz already offers angular resolution similar to the human limit.

Well, I'll put it bluntly. It's easy to show that 10 microsecond interchannel time differences (which is the angular resolution issue you mention, to be clear, not the "single channel" claim now attributed to Dr. K.) are audible. I haven't run any extremely careful tests at 5 microseconds, but the fact that it's not even very hard to make such distinctions at 10 microseconds in a DBT (and even a pretty scrappy one) suggests that there's nothing extraordinary about the idea. Even us old guys can hear 10 microseconds. And that's on signals generated mathematically at 44.1/16, so there is NO question of ultrasonics involved. (yes, I checked the DAC, too)

Now, there are a host of other issues, especially with studio recordings, and with the way they are made, compressed, etc.

Until we can be sure that the high rate recording has exactly, precisely the same processing as the 16/44 one, we are on very thin ice.

The question of "single channel" delays such as attributed to Dr. K is much simpler. Adding in a second pulse (or copy of audio, or whatever) with a 5 microsecond delay creates a filter that has a zero at 100kHz, is down 6dB at 50, and down .9 dB at 20kHz. That is, for a signal with lots and lots of high frequency content, right on the proximate-comparison threshold. This doesn't prove that ultrasonic perception is NOT involved, but it does show that it isn't required, for a first-rate listener in a first-rate setup. Changes to the signal within the 20kHz band will suffice. Barely. Which is what 'threshold' is all about, of course.

Of course, if the second pulse is added and total energy isn't kept constant, then the question becomes a very simple one of the two-pulse system just having much more energy inside the 20kHz bandwidth. That is pretty easily audible, so I don't expect that's what happened.

The problem is your 'math' only presents a partial representation of what actually occurs with the signal.

What bothers me is that I presented this information on page 45 of "Interesting Papers" string and you simply ignored it and posted your same partial explanation on this string. Leaving out crucial information gives the public a wrong impression and I thought you claimed you were interested in helping the public. So what gives.

In fact your comment here disproves nothing that either I or Dr. Kunchur have stated, that higher than 16/44 is necessary for accurate reproduction.

Here is a link demonstrating what actually happens to an audio signal, in visual form, that J_Js math does not reveal. Please check the graphs 1A/1B,1C and 2 under "Examples" section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aliasing

Quote:

Anti-aliasing means removing signal components that have a higher frequency than is able to be properly resolved by the recording (or sampling) device. This removal is done before (re)sampling at a lower resolution. When sampling is performed without removing this part of the signal, it causes undesirable artifacts such as the black-and-white noise near the top of figure 1-a below.

In signal acquisition and audio, anti-aliasing is often done using an analog anti-aliasing filter to remove the out-of-band component of the input signal prior to sampling with an analog-to-digital converter. In digital photography, optical anti-aliasing filters are made of birefringent materials, and smooth the signal in the spatial optical domain. The anti-aliasing filter essentially blurs the image slightly in order to reduce resolution to below the limit of the digital sensor (the larger the pixel pitch, the lower the achievable resolution at the sensor level). Figure 1-a illustrates the visual distortion that occurs when anti-aliasing is not used. Notice that near the top of the image , where the checkerboard is very distant, the image is impossible to recognize, and is not aesthetically appealing (near the noise floor in audio). By contrast, figure 1-b is anti-aliased. The checkerboard near the top blends into gray, which is usually the desired effect when the resolution is insufficient to show the detail. Even near the bottom of the image, the edges appear much smoother in the anti-aliased image. Figure 1-c shows another anti-aliasing algorithm, based on the sinc filter, which is considered better than the algorithm used in 1-b. Figure 2 shows magnified portions of Figure 1 for comparison. The left half of the image is taken from Figure 1-a, and the right half of the image is taken from Figure 1-c. Observe that the gray pixels help make 1-c much smoother than 1-a, though they are not very attractive at the scale used in Figure 2.

As one can see, J_Js "math" reveals only a partial picture, not the whole picture of what actually occurs with the signal.

With all due respect, I personally would like to ask that we keep the "interesting papers" thread from spilling over to this thread.

Quote:
Stephen has done so this morning, and I echo his sentiment. The only person who was banned from this forum was Carl Engbretsen, posting as "DUP." The reason he was ultimately banned was because _all_ he posted were attacks on others. The antagonists in this and other threads, you J_J, SASAudio, Michigan J. Frog, etc - may be extremely confrontational, but all of them also post useful and relevant posts on audio matters. The one exception is Krabapple, who only seems interested in flames and, unless I may have missed it, has not offered even one posting on a specific audio subject. That is what I interpret as "thin ice."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

For a publisher to claim the moral high ground based on what he considers confrontational versus flaming on a very loosly moderated public forum, is, for want of a better word, bullshit.

RG

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Because, frankly, I regard all such posturing from both sides as puerile. I have no intention of getting caught in the crossfire.

While I rather quite understand not wanting to get caught in the crossfire, which posturing is this on my side?

Posters are not required to post under their real names on this forum. Demands that you reveal your identity are inappropriate, as are demands you have made that Michigan J. Frog reveal his identity, if that is not indeed his identity. The cross-demands re: identity are merely adding too much noise for me to be able to readily comprehend the technical issue being discussed in this thread. Which is something that has intrigued me even since it was first explained to me by someone wearing a name tag that identified the bearer as "Stanley Lipshitz" and who even looked like Stanley. :-) To a first approximation, I believe that man was indeed Stanley Lipshitz, much as I believe you are the man I shared more than few beers with in Minnesota on 2001. (Of course, the majority of the cells in both our bodies has long since been replaced by others, so literally speaking, I am wrong even in that assumption.)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hummph. I have proved elsewhere that the sockpuppet Michigan J. Frog is not who he says he is. The real Michigan J. Frog speaks Martian, and the sockpuppet here has admitted he does not.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post65973

Also, the real Michigan J. Frog has actually met Marvin the Martian, and would therefore know that the latter is not jj.

Quote:

Quote:
Stephen has done so this morning, and I echo his sentiment. The only person who was banned from this forum was Carl Engbretsen, posting as "DUP." The reason he was ultimately banned was because _all_ he posted were attacks on others. The antagonists in this and other threads, you J_J, SASAudio, Michigan J. Frog, etc - may be extremely confrontational, but all of them also post useful and relevant posts on audio matters. The one exception is Krabapple, who only seems interested in flames and, unless I may have missed it, has not offered even one posting on a specific audio subject. That is what I interpret as "thin ice."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

For a publisher to claim the moral high ground based on what he considers confrontational versus flaming on a very loosly moderated public forum, is, for want of a better word, bullshit.

RG

Where is the claim of moral high ground? seems to me the issue is audio content. do you have it in your posts or not?

Quote:
With all due respect, I personally would like to ask that we keep the "interesting papers" thread from spilling over to this thread.

Yes, let's keep the two discussions separated please.

Quote:
Posters are not required to post under their real names on this forum.

On the surface that seems reasonable. However, forums that are run responsibly disallow anyone in the industry from taking pot shots anonymously at other competing vendors and their products. This is what I object to, and there's no question that you should too.

--Ethan

Quote:
As one can see, J_Js "math" reveals only a partial picture, not the whole picture of what actually occurs with the signal.

In accordance with SM's request, I will leave this, stating only that antialaising and antiimaging filters are simply stated, part of sampling, and that the effects I describe, being linear effects, simply multiply with the antialias/image filters in the frequency domain, and thereby create the effects described. The claim that this is a partial picture is misleading and irrelevant. As to the quotes of contempt around the "math", I regard that as defamatory and falsely accusing, and require that sasaudio cease and desist in his accusations.

In general, I suggest Morrison's book "Fourier Analysis", it's an excellent, mainstrem text on this kind of issue, yet again.

And with that, back to the OP.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Could Stephen or John please clarify this?

Michigan J. Frog does not have such authority. Having said that, I don't believe he claims to have such authority. I do agree, however, that Krabapple is walking on thin ice. I have sent Krabapple a PM, asking him to please keep his posts on topic. Krabapple has not read it, however.

So I ask again here: Krabapple, please read your PMs and please keep your posts on-topic. I'm having a very difficult time finding anything valuable or productive in your posts, but it's easy to point to examples of gratuitous insults and disrespect. If that behavior continues, we will have no problem deactivating your account.

As for the discussion of J_J's real name: I have no reason to believe J_J is anyone but who he says he is. I hear he's a pretty cool guy. I wish all the nonsense would end, and that we would move forward.

Stephen,

I've read yesterday's PM now (You sent it after I'd signed off for the day).

I'm generally happy to stay on-topic, but since Mr. Atkinson chose only to respond to a post *here*, rather than on the appropriate thread where I repeatedly asked him to response, I felt I must take advantage of that rare opportunity.

I also asked *you* , days ago, on that other thread, to intercede re: the slanders against JJ, but I got no response from you either. I'm pleased you have weighed in at last -- even if it's on the wrong thread!

As for having difficulty with the content of my posts, could you please explain what "valuable or productive" content is emerging from 'Michael J. Frog''s, overall? Does he get 10 free flame-ridden, contentless posts for every 'legit' post he makes? Sure seems that way to me.

Quote:

Quote:

What claims have you seen me make about sound of my gear, Scott?

Now that is rich. Why is it that you don't make claims about sound? Those claims would be just opinions like everybody else's. Is it because you have no opinions about sound? I doubt that someone who "cares about sound" as you claim would do so sans any opinions about sound quality. Maybe, just maybe you have enough self awarness to realize that after years of being an ass to people who have offered their opinions about sound because of their lack of "scientific evidence" ::cough:: in the way of home brewed blind tests that you would be a pathetic hypocrite if you were to offer opinions with no more support than the ones you have shat upon. So you have painted yourself into a corner and are stuck with not being able to express opinions without being a raving hypocrite. Fortunately many of us enthusiasts are not strapped with that baggage and are free to offer subjective opinions to the world without being hypocritical in so doing. That is the sort of thing hobbyists tend to do. You know, share their enthusiasm over the pleasures their hobby gives them. You claim to know it don't you? You were insulted when you thought your passion for sound had somehow been questioned. To bad you can't talk about it without being a hypocrite. Maybe that is why you tend to be such a dick.

After this, I'm going to leave off the creationist tack, because you are arguing right past what I am saying. FWIW, I'm not the only one who traces some of the 'appeal' of creationist ideas in America, to the persistent populist undercurrent of anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism. Scientific authority is 'privilaged' because of how scientific claims are arrived at, Scott. Creationists think their 'authority' is better than what supposedly 'intolerant, arrogant elites' have vetted as 'acceptable' for teaching in science classes; they like to appeal to the public by claiming this is an issue of intellectual *freedom* against a perceived tyranny. In audiophile culture, we see this anti-science attitude manifested too often too, e.g. with claims that the findings and methods of science somehow don't really apply to what listeners (expecially 'golden ears') experience and that 'objectivists' are somehow trying to harsh their buzz.

As for being a hypocrite, any claim I make about what *I* hear in a comparison would be properly qualified -- with such means as 'but of course I didn't do the comparison blind, and I don't have a priori objective reasons to predict a difference...so I could have been imaging it."

That makes me a hypocrite how, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:
As one can see, J_Js "math" reveals only a partial picture, not the whole picture of what actually occurs with the signal.

In accordance with SM's request, I will leave this, stating only that antialaising and antiimaging filters are simply stated, part of sampling, and that the effects I describe, being linear effects, simply multiply with the antialias/image filters in the frequency domain, and thereby create the effects described. The claim that this is a partial picture is misleading and irrelevant. As to the quotes of contempt around the "math", I regard that as defamatory and falsely accusing, and require that sasaudio cease and desist in his accusations.

In general, I suggest Morrison's book "Fourier Analysis", it's an excellent, mainstrem text on this kind of issue, yet again.

And with that, back to the OP.

I am leaving as well, but notice J_J has to get in one quick fish story.
Well the graphs/photos tell a different story than what you claim your math is capable of. The graphs are quite relavent in every sense of the word, applying to both digital and analog as the article clearly states.

Got any more fish stories to dupe the public.

Quote:

Quote:
Posters are not required to post under their real names on this forum.

On the surface that seems reasonable. However, forums that are run responsibly disallow anyone in the industry from taking pot shots anonymously at other competing vendors and their products. This is what I object to, and there's no question that you should too.

--Ethan

You mean your attacks on page one of the synergistics research string, your direct competitor. Of course you were not anonymous.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
You're on thin ice here, Krabapple. But if this is how you want to go out, if this is what you want your last words on this forum to be, fine!

Do I understand by this paragraph that 'Michigan J. Frog' is claiming that he or she has authority over who posts at this site?

Could Stephen or John please clarify this?

Stephen has done so this morning, and I echo his sentiment. The only person who was banned from this forum was Carl Engbretsen, posting as "DUP." The reason he was ultimately banned was because _all_ he posted were attacks on others. The antagonists in this and other threads, you J_J, SASAudio, Michigan J. Frog, etc - may be extremely confrontational, but all of them also post useful and relevant posts on audio matters. The one exception is Krabapple, who only seems interested in flames and, unless I may have missed it, has not offered even one posting on a specific audio subject. That is what I interpret as "thin ice."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I think you 'missed it', JA.

I've posted on the use of DBTs *in audio* research --

I've posted on Stereophile's own review of the audio quality of the iPod.

I've posted about Sean Olive's blog article "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests".

I've posted about software to compare audio files, and the dangers of visual evaluation of mp3s.

And on this very thread, I posted a link to Doug Schneider's article on blind testing in audio.

Are these all not 'specific' enough? I would figure I've earned at least a few dozen audio-content-free posts, using the standard applied to Frog.

Quote:
Well the graphs/photos tell a different story than what you claim the math does. Clear visible proof.

Indeed, absolute proof that I'm 100% right. Please go back to the other thread where I've posted a simple exercise that will show you the elementary fallacy that you persist in exercising.

Once again, please get Morrison, or any other good text on Fourier Analysis, and it will show the basic, utterly mistaken flaw in your so-called reasoning.

Now take it back to the other thread, and answer the question over there.

Quote:
Hummph. I have proved elsewhere that the sockpuppet Michigan J. Frog is not who he says he is. The real Michigan J. Frog speaks Martian, and the sockpuppet here has admitted he does not.

I already told you, you are confusing me with Marvin. You think I'm a Martian, Krabapple thinks I'm a pig, this "j_j" character thinks I'm a woman, Krueger thinks I'm Michael Fremer, and Ethan thinks I'm "an undisclosed competitor out to steal the potential customers he's targeting on these forums". I don't know if you have to be a lunatic to become an "audio objectivist", or if being an audio objectivist drives you people to lunacy.You even say you have "proven" this, yet offer no more proof than my previous explanation to you that frogs are not Martians and don't speak their language. But then, making an unsupported claim and calling it "proof" is just the sort of thing we can expect from so-called "audio objectivists", isn't it.

Quote:
Also, the real Michigan J. Frog has actually met Marvin the Martian, and would therefore know that the latter is not jj.

Not too keen on logic, are you? Although we worked on different lots, unlike you I at least knew Marvin personally. Which is precisely why I would know better than you whether the person behind the "j_j" sock is in fact Marvin the Martian. I found the empty box for an illudium Q-36 space modulator in "j_j"'s car. Kind of a dead giveaway right there. So if it looks like a Martian, talks like a Martian, complains like a Martian.....

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What claims have you seen me make about sound of my gear, Scott?

Now that is rich. Why is it that you don't make claims about sound? Those claims would be just opinions like everybody else's. Is it because you have no opinions about sound? I doubt that someone who "cares about sound" as you claim would do so sans any opinions about sound quality. Maybe, just maybe you have enough self awarness to realize that after years of being an ass to people who have offered their opinions about sound because of their lack of "scientific evidence" ::cough:: in the way of home brewed blind tests that you would be a pathetic hypocrite if you were to offer opinions with no more support than the ones you have shat upon. So you have painted yourself into a corner and are stuck with not being able to express opinions without being a raving hypocrite. Fortunately many of us enthusiasts are not strapped with that baggage and are free to offer subjective opinions to the world without being hypocritical in so doing. That is the sort of thing hobbyists tend to do. You know, share their enthusiasm over the pleasures their hobby gives them. You claim to know it don't you? You were insulted when you thought your passion for sound had somehow been questioned. To bad you can't talk about it without being a hypocrite. Maybe that is why you tend to be such a dick.

After this, I'm going to leave off the creationist tack, because you are arguing right past what I am saying. FWIW, I'm not the only one who traces some of the 'appeal' of creationist ideas in America, to the persistent populist undercurrent of anti-elitism and anti-intellectualism. Scientific authority is 'privilaged' because of how scientific claims are arrived at, Scott. Creationists think their 'authority' is better than what supposedly 'intolerant, arrogant elites' have vetted as 'acceptable' for teaching in science classes; they like to appeal to the public by claiming this is an issue of intellectual *freedom* against a perceived tyranny. In audiophile culture, we see this anti-science attitude manifested too often too, e.g. with claims that the findings and methods of science somehow don't really apply to what listeners (expecially 'golden ears') experience and that 'objectivists' are somehow trying to harsh their buzz.

As for being a hypocrite, any claim I make about what *I* hear in a comparison would be properly qualified -- with such means as 'but of course I didn't do the comparison blind, and I don't have a priori objective reasons to predict a difference...so I could have been imaging it."

That makes me a hypocrite how, exactly?

Did I say you were a hypocrite Steve? I suggest you read what I said a bit more carefully. What I did say is that your years of being an ass to others when they were simply offering their subjective opinions has left you in the position of being a hypocrite *were* you to offer your own subjective opinions with the same lack of support. As if our perceptions need support in a perceptually based endevour anyway. Your question "What claims have you seen me make about sound of my gear, Scott?" does make the point. The answer is none. So you see, I haven't called you a hypocrite. I just wonder though, if you are avoiding expressing your opinions on sound quality and have been all these years despite caring so deeply about it, why? Certainly you can understand enthusiasts sharing their experiences with fellow enthusiasts can't you? I can also tell you that demanding "scientific varification" from audiophiles when they express their opinions about their perceptions is both unreasonable and obnoxious. It's that sort of thing that gives the impression that some objectivsts have a bug up their ass about subjectivists simply enjoying their hobby. I think this was expressed in the article we have before us.

Quote:

Quote:
Well the graphs/photos tell a different story than what you claim the math does. Clear visible proof.

Indeed, absolute proof that I'm 100% right. Please go back to the other thread where I've posted a simple exercise that will show you the elementary fallacy that you persist in exercising.

Please don't lie to the public. The photos clearly demonstrate the inaccuracies of your generic claims. Please attempt to be honest, ok.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Well the graphs/photos tell a different story than what you claim the math does. Clear visible proof.

Indeed, absolute proof that I'm 100% right. Please go back to the other thread where I've posted a simple exercise that will show you the elementary fallacy that you persist in exercising.

Please don't lie to the public. The photos clearly demonstrate the inaccuracies of your generic claims. Please attempt to be honest, ok.

Please, PLEASE take your mistakes and your ridiculous accusations back to the proper thread. You know where it is.

Quote:
As to the quotes of contempt around the "math", I regard that as defamatory and falsely accusing, and require that sasaudio cease and desist in his accusations.

Oh, you're one to talk. Once again, we see you demanding a level of treatment greater than you offer others, as if you think you are above everyone here. In other words, more hypocrisy. Well then my answer to that is, as to the "quotes of contempt" you keep putting around my name, or the all-out attacks on my name, ie. calling me "Michelle J. Frog",
I also regard that as defamatory and falsely accusing, and require that you, "j_j", cease and desist in your accusations. If you must address me directly or indirectly, you may refer to me as "Mr. Frog", "Sir Frog" or "Lord Frog" (without the quotes, natch). (Sorry, but I reserve the name "Michigan" for rational people).

If you are not willing to then you can cease and desist from constantly making these ridiculous demands that people "cease and desist". And in my ever so humble opinion, if you're going to keep steering things off-topic and creating these theatrics that sidetrack the convo, because someone put quotes around the word "math" in a debate, I think you are too thin-skinned to live on these forums. I'm saying this for your own good j_j. After like 300 such indignant rants you've given us in this relatively short frame of time, I know this isn't going to end any time soon, since you've been ranting like this for 20 years. I'm just afraid at this age you risk having a heart attack or nervous breakdown over something as trivial as someone putting "quotes" around the word "math", or just looking at you for too long ('til you get afraid and think they're "stalking" you and out to get you...). I know that if I was your doctor I wouldn't advise you to continue this obsession with fighting audiophiles on the net, because of what it must be doing to your BP.

Quote:
You mean your attacks on page one of the synergistics research string, your direct competitor. Of course you were not anonymous.

I never post anonymously, and Synergistic Research has never been a competitor of mine. I'm sure Ted Denney wishes he were a competitor, but he's not because he doesn't sell anything that affects room acoustics. As I'm sure you are aware given your schooling.

Not to editorialize too much, but my company's web site is chock full of science, and graphs, and videos, and clear explanations about acoustics, and even MP3 files letting folks hear the improvement from treating a room. Last I saw Ted Denney was still scrambling to fulfill his promise to show "proof" that his magic bowls actually work.

--Ethan

You just wait, Ethan. Ted Denney said he'd come back here with some objective data and kick your butt.

Ethan, check out Paul Messenger's show reoprt in the June issue. What if he could repeatedly identify whether or not these items were present? Then what?

Quote:
I'm generally happy to stay on-topic, but since Mr. Atkinson chose only to respond to a post *here*, rather than on the appropriate thread where I repeatedly asked him to response, I felt I must take advantage of that rare opportunity.

Don't assume that because someone doesn't respond to your trolling, it means they haven't seen it. I don't always respond to your dross either after having read it. Especially if it isn't garbage day.

Quote:
As for having difficulty with the content of my posts, could you please explain what "valuable or productive" content is emerging from 'Michael J. Frog''s, overall?

First of all, it's "Michigan J. Frog". It's not "Michael Jackass Frog" or "Michelle Jagoff Frog", which you previously referred to me as. And that's "Mr. Frog", "Sir Frog", or "Lord Frog" to you. Get my name right. You whine about your idol "j_j" being "slandered" while in the same breath "slandering" me?? You're really not making a strong case for yourself by complaining to the moderators about another member, the same time you are attacking him. As for valuable or productive content, I'm pretty happy with the Engineer thread I started. It has given numerous people the opportunity to acknowledge the people that built our industry. Notice that your own heroes in audio, Sean Olive, "j_j", Peter Aczel and Floyd Toole, were not mentioned.

You on the other hand... Well I haven't seen ANY civil posts discussing audio from you in your entire time trolling our forums. What I have seen is you insulting every member here by calling us "fools", among other things. To me, that pretty much explains why you are here, why all of your posts are attack posts, and why there is no reasonable expectation that you will ever maintain a level of civility with the majority of the members here - even if you make an attempt to just so you can continue trolling us. You wear your hatred of most of our members on your sleeve. You have been the worst, most outright abusive troll I have seen on these forums. DUP may have been more pervasive than you, but from what I saw, he didn't get as nasty as you do, didn't take it as far as you have. Like I said, you clearly miss RAO because you are trying to recreate the group here. Just go back to RAO if you're going to do that.

Note that according to a careful statistical analysis of the forum's output, the general level of valuable or productive content (relative to content free posts) reduced greatly once you came on board, along with Arny Krueger, j_j, and the rest of the DBT-worshipping cross-forum bashing crew from Hydrogen Audio. Purely a coincidence I'm sure. But then, you admitted that you are only here for trolling purposes, and not for civil discussions. So for you to actually complain about getting what you give, well isn't that priceless?

Quote:
I think you 'missed it', JA.

Well, you know, we're all happy that you took all that time to trawl through your "contributions" (I'm sure it must have been a queasy experience even for you!), and managed to find 5 posts out of 75 which are on topic. But even in the very examples you chose, when examining your tone and attitude, I'm still not convinced you even understand the meaning of "civil discussion". Here are some quotes from those posts you linked to illustrate what I'm talking about:

I've posted on the use of DBTs *in audio* research --

To MJF:

Really, it needs saying: you're just an ignorant, crap-spouting blowhard, MJ Frog.

I've posted about Sean Olive's blog article "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests".

To Jan:

Can you not read the graphs?
Silly blusterer. You confuse your own incomprehension with omission...

(In the next post down on that page, you write):

"LOL. There is *nothing* that isn't apoplectic and laughable about your ranting, you clown. And that's lucky for you, since otherwise your frothing at the mouth.... "

And on this very thread, I posted a link to Doug Schneider's article on blind testing in audio.

Yes, and even in that response to JA you couldn't help but attack your fellow members:

"Speaking of which, since I at last have your attention, you might want to rein in the more rabid-dog Stereophile subscribers on the 'Interesting Papers' thread...."

Now since you like trawling through your dross, find me a single post out of everything you've put up so far, where you haven't at all acted like an ass. I'll be happy to give you many of mine in return.

Lastly, please don't just take my word for you being an abusive troll and of no value on an audiophile forum as this. Here's a few words on the subject of your character from one of our members who obviously knows you very well from years of interaction with you on RAO, and who happens to be closer to your ideological camp than he is to mine (so it isn't just partisan politics speaking). This is the person you were debating today, who has been quite civil with you, but whom you saw fit to put quotes around one of his misspelled words in order to mock him on a spelling issue, after he said he was dyslexic:

Scott wrote:

"Did I say you were a hypocrite Steve? I suggest you read what I said a bit more carefully. What I did say is that your years of being an ass to others when they were simply offering their subjective opinions has left you in the position of being a hypocrite *were* you to offer your own subjective opinions with the same lack of support. "

"I can also tell you that demanding "scientific varification" from audiophiles when they express their opinions about their perceptions is both unreasonable and obnoxious."

Quote:
You just wait, Ethan. Ted Denney said he'd come back here with some objective data and kick your butt.

Ethan, check out Paul Messenger's show reoprt in the June issue. What if he could repeatedly identify whether or not these items were present? Then what?

You make a good point Buddha. To keep it simple, metal resonates (depending upon composition, mass, shape, thickness etc.) just like a mass of air in a helmholtz resonator. Q and loses can be adjusted in both as well. This has been known for many decades. Yet ethan states:

Quote:
but he's not because he doesn't sell anything that affects room acoustics. As I'm sure you are aware given your schooling.

As one can see just above, that is not true. And he misrepresents me as well, which I do not appreciate. I certainly don't trust him.

As one can see Ethan presents no evidence to contradict science and prove that synergistic research is not his competitor. And he could have emailed synergistics for objective evidence instead of publicly attacking them on the first page of the SR string.

Quote:

I detect a strong whiff of anger, sarcasm and one-sided egoism here... probably the best evidence that Synergistic Research IS indeed your competitor.

So, when you annoy someone by accusing them of something, it proves you're right when you find out they're annoyed?

Interesting logic, that.

My point on "objective" vs. "subjective" is already stated in the bit about memory and cognition above.

It's telling that nobody but Ethan even bothered to respond, I think.

Quote:

My point on "objective" vs. "subjective" is already stated in the bit about memory and cognition above.

It's telling that nobody but Ethan even bothered to respond, I think.

Boo Boo, are we under-replying to your pearls?

Are you sure you have the right thread?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I detect a strong whiff of anger, sarcasm and one-sided egoism here... probably the best evidence that Synergistic Research IS indeed your competitor.

So, when you annoy someone by accusing them of something, it proves you're right when you find out they're annoyed?

Interesting logic, that.

You may be a good engineer, jj, but you sure don't seem to have a clue on how to read into simple rhetoric. Notice that Ethan says that Ted Denney WISHES he were his competitor, italicizing the word 'wishes.' Pretty obvious a put-down, if you ask me (or better yet, observe some 5-6 year olds who use the same rhetoric to taunt other kids.) Why the hell would Ethan even say someone would 'wish' to be his competitor? Probably because that someone is likely in the same market as Ethan's company. And all I said is that judging from the product line of Synergistic, the products do seem that they're geared toward room-tuning/acoustics. Dunno, maybe you think I'm cuckoo... but it sure fooled Paul Messenger into thinking the same thing.

Hence, all in all, either Buddha or sas seem to have caught him out on a hypocrisy: Ethan was talking smack about a competitor when he decries such a thing. I'm not saying Ethan's evil or anything, so let's all simmer down. I just thought it was funny.

Just the facts, ma'am.

Of course you are right Selfdivider. You are exactly right in what you posted.

Ethan has been caught again and again. In fact Ethan just misrepresented me on this very page, yet J_J did not correct him. Instead J_J replies to you. It is all about attack the competition and increase sales.