Quote:
This from someone who has repeatedly made rude, uncivilized, unprofessional and uncalled for attacks on the sound and quality of my system without even knowing what components I use in my system and without ever hearing my systen despite desparately wanting to look at it when you used GoogleEarth to peer at my home...

GoogleEarth? Ethan must have one hell of a monitor, if he can find out what stereo system someone has in their home through Google Earth. Last year, I had Ethan jerking me around for a month and prepared to travel 2500 miles just in order to find out where I live. For him to go no further than checking GoogleEarth to snoop on you, either he just doesn't have his heart in it anymore, or you must have done something to get on his bad side. But I kid. Ethan is really a very easy guy to get along with. The secret is, you just gotta agree with him 110% of the time.

I realize you were not being "condescending", but just agreeing with him that his Pioneer receiver costs $150. But you see, that's where the extra 10% comes in.

Quote:

Quote:
I was laughing at Jan's statement that you were concerned that others might have paid less. It reminded me of something the late Peter W. Mitchell once said about his fellow "Yankee Audiophiles," that "they want perfection but they don't want to pay more than $49.95 for it."

Now that's funny...

That's British humor. But this ...

Quote:
But given how poorly designed most amplifier DBTs have been, it's always possible that the Pioneer could not be distinguished from either my Mark Levinson No.33H monoblocks or an iPod under blind conditions. :-)

That's hysterical!

Careful, John, you'll find yourself accused of condescension.

Quote:
Ethan must have one hell of a monitor ...

The best $150 can buy. He bought it blind.

Quote:
... you must have done something to get on his bad side.

Yep! I did

I disagreed.

Bad!

Bad, Jan!!

Bad, bad, bad!!!

ROTFL!!!

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not opposed to DBT, I'm oppsed to a dumb ass generalized conclusion based on a one speaker listening test.

Again you totally miss the point. The point is Sean's article explains the failings of sighted tests using his speaker tests as an example. You repeatedly use a straw man by attacking the use of one speaker, or saying "Ethan doesn't use blind testing to buy a speaker," and so forth. This is unrelated to the subject at hand. If you want to defend sighted tests, or show a failing of DBT (good luck with that), then please address that and that alone.

--Ethan

Well, yes, this is the irony of it all.

We have people who start shouting "one speaker", and take
Sean's article out of context, and then start flailing away at enough straw men to run the crows off all of Iowa, but then turn around and accuse Sean, you, and me, of extrapolating things too far.

It seems quite obvious that some folks are not interested in having a discussion, they simply require absolutely that everyone agree 105% with their own personal preferences or ELSE they will simply enter into a whole series of rhetorical cheats and excesses.

Others, however, seem able to make a distinction between their own personal preference, universal psychological issues, and the science. This is, perhaps, an improvement.

I'm OOF at a convention and running a booth, don't expect a lot from me in the next few days.

Quote:
This from someone who has repeatedly made rude, uncivilized, unprofessional and uncalled for attacks on the sound and quality of my system without even knowing what components I use in my system and without ever hearing my systen despite desparately wanting to look at it when you used GoogleEarth to peer at my home...

What ever is this on about?

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... but it seemed you were agreeing with Jan's condescending remark amount how little my receiver cost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what I posted, tell me what is "condescending" about this statement ...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Frog, you're wrong on this one. The guy who started this BS only spent $150 for his Pioneer receiver.

Or was that $150 retail?

Probably doesn't matter, he's still asking around to see if anyone in the industry got their's for less.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you running away from the fact you own a $150 Pioneer receiver and use it in your main system? That's excactly what you told us only a few months ago. You do own a Pioneer receiver, do you not? And the figure "$150" has been attached to that very receiver, has it not?

Are you so ashamed of that component that you find any mention of it to be an attack?

What is factually incorrect about what I stated above?

Dude, you know I think you're an unmitigated ass but condescend I did not and attack my system you have - repeatedly.

Get over your dishonest self!

Explain to me why YOU would raise the issue of the cost of his receiver. Why is it relevant? Why do YOU keep raising it?

Given that I've had worlds of experience with people who point out the price of equipment for the sole purpose of making fun.

I've had someone ridicule my amplfier because it wasn't over 15,000 USD. I've had somebody ridicule my DACs because they were driven over optical from a computer. I've had people publically, in worldwide circulation, ridicule everything I work on because my loudspeakers don't cost 20,000 USD per speaker.

Thats why I think you keep raising the price of somebody else's equipment.

Sorry, a good power amplifier just does not have to cost a lot any more. That's the facts of the matter. High price does not assure good speakers. (low may assure bad, however, in the case of speakers)

So let's just drop the bit about price, ok? It is nothing more than veiled personal attacks in my experience.

And, you know, I'm an old hill jack, and pointing out how rich you are isn't the way to my heart, either.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not opposed to DBT, I'm oppsed to a dumb ass generalized conclusion based on a one speaker listening test.

Again you totally miss the point. The point is Sean's article explains the failings of sighted tests using his speaker tests as an example. You repeatedly use a straw man by attacking the use of one speaker, or saying "Ethan doesn't use blind testing to buy a speaker," and so forth. This is unrelated to the subject at hand. If you want to defend sighted tests, or show a failing of DBT (good luck with that), then please address that and that alone.

--Ethan

Well, yes, this is the irony of it all.

We have people who start shouting "one speaker", and take
Sean's article out of context, and then start flailing away at enough straw men to run the crows off all of Iowa, but then turn around and accuse Sean, you, and me, of extrapolating things too far.

It seems quite obvious that some folks are not interested in having a discussion, they simply require absolutely that everyone agree 105% with their own personal preferences or ELSE they will simply enter into a whole series of rhetorical cheats and excesses.

Others, however, seem able to make a distinction between their own personal preference, universal psychological issues, and the science. This is, perhaps, an improvement.

I'm OOF at a convention and running a booth, don't expect a lot from me in the next few days.

Wow, the KoolAid must be strong there.

The context of a one speaker test being extrapolated to the "audio industry needing to grow up" and calling sighted listening dishonest is pretty ridiculous.

Why aren't you "flailing" at the inadequacy of the study regarding the broad conclusion?

The fact that you can't make that connection is testament to obvious bias. It's kind of nuts, really.

Just how unrelated to the actual audio experience are you willing to go before an example doesn't apply?

JJ, if you are not a full dolt - the study conditions do not apply to what we do, and the conclusion does not follow from the result.

The straw man you are seeing is created by Sean when he makes a huge leap from playing with one speaker and turns it into his dumb ass conclusion that his DBT somehow leads to you thinking he 'proved' something about Hi Fi.

Ludicrous.

What are you zombies up to?

Quote:
So let's just drop the bit about price, ok? It is nothing more than veiled personal attacks in my experience.

My word! How you do get yourself worked up into a lather over things you do not understand. About things you could easily understand but choose not to.

WTF is wrong with you?!!!

You arrrived here just the other day and now you've jumped in my shit twice over things you truly haven't taken the time to understand. You don't read anything other than one post and then you respond with a pissed off attitude that really stinks. And this time you've got me really pissed off over your attitude!

And I'm very tired of your bullshit!

I don't care if you are a friend of John's, Obama's or the Queen's. I don't care if you designed the wires in the f'ing Space Shuttle. I don't care who you are, what hills you crawled out of or what you've done since that time. What you have proven you cannot do is f'ing read the thread before you open your mouth!

You need to read something for comprehension - what comes before and what comes after - before you start screaming about how unfair and biased I am. Your little tirades about how wrong I am, how stupid I am, have, in two trys, gone over the limit.

READ!!!!!!!! Read the GD thread before you unhinge your brain and start to type. Know what the hell you're talking about before you accuse someone of anything!

I'm not going to explain my post to you. If you want to know how far off course you are with your petty little comments, then go back and read the entire thread instead of the bits and pieces you then react to. Or is it that you really don't care what someone else has to say and you only read to find something to misinterpret and then go over the top about? What I posted had nothing to do with the cost of a product relative to its sound quality. If you had read the post I responded to, you would know that. But you didn't read. And you didn't read John's response either, did you? It was easier to just scream about something that doesn't exist, isn't it! You need to read!

BUUUUUT, NOOOOOOOOOO! You little jackbooted ass, you had to run off some knee jerk insult without knowing the facts. This is the second time you've done this to me since you arrived here the other day. I'm already quite tired of your inability to read before you open your mouth. I am trying my best to enjoy myself on this forum and you are making this very, very difficult with your insulting posts that constantly attack me for something I've never once said.

Go back and read the thread. Then I expect an apology from you.

And, if you read enough of the post you quoted, why aren't you unhinged about Ethan's insults to my system? Ethan has insulted my system on at least a half dozen occasions, without call and without knowing what components I own and without ever hearing my systsem. That's OK with you? You have no problem with Winer being a jerk, eh? But you'll jump me for something I never said? Is that it? Yeah, you didn't see those posts but then you didn't see what I posted before you jumped me either! Just who the hell are you anyway? Winer's momma?

Why aren't you upset that Ethan peered into my property? You'd enjoy having someone on an audio forum do that to you maybe? How about the outright lies Winer posted about me with the only intention being to directly insult me? Those are OK with you too? You don't mind those? Is that it?

You bitch and moan about attacks that never occured but you're OK with those that did!

Why the hell aren't you paying attention?

What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel?

Quote:

My word! How you do get yourself worked up into a lather over things you do not understand. About things you could easily understand but choose not to.

You trying to rewrite the Serenity Prayer?

So is it blind or sighted testing when the client knows which two speakers I'm going to demonstrate and then after a few switches turns to me and asks, "Which one is playing now?"

Tell me, old audio pro like yourself, what sort of buying prejudices does that reflect?

Quote:

Quote:
Ethan, why don't you just tell me how you think Sean's article relates to speaker buying and listening.

Very simple - a blind test lets someone audition speakers without being influenced by how much they cost or how they look. That may not help experienced audio pros like me, but it would certainly help much of the hi-fi buying public.

--Ethan

Oh, so you have transcended the need for blind listening!

Congrats!

So, how should an 'honest' audio industry do as you wish?

Do people need some sort of ID to show they are free of bias, like Ethan, or some other method?

Also, should they listen to only one speaker in order to determine which product to buy? Did Sean set the standard for DBT listening?

I doubt it's possible, but any critique of Sean's trial and conclusion?

I really am glad you and the two new trolls seem to be endorsing DBT while pretty much claiming immunity from the effect in question.

"Do as I say, not as I do" becomes you three.

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel

On second thought, I don't think it's wise to argue with someone who appears to be this disturbed.

Quote:

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel

On second thought, I don't think it's wise to argue with someone who appears to be this disturbed.

That's nice of you to warn him, but he likely figured out your disturbance early on and took the risk.

I don't want to argue with you. Can't you figure that out?! There is nothing to argue about in my original post. Read it, go ahead and read it in its context and you'll see there is nothing to argue about. Winer owns a $150 Pioneer receiver. That's what I said and that's all I said about the "quality" of a Pioneer receiver.

I don't want to argue about $150 or about a Pioneer receiver. I want you to apologize for twice jumping on me when you had no idea what you were talking about.

I want an apology and I want you to comment on Winer's behavior as I have reported it. If you need proof now before you say anything about Winer, you can find his posts by looking him up in the User List. Try reading a bit before you say anything, eh?!

Then I want you to begin reading more than one post before you unhinge your brain.

What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

Jan has been an audiophile for years. He was also on a Sansui commercial in 1978. Let the audiophile consult and just enjoy the music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HANkQwz_P5k&NR=1

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel

On second thought, I don't think it's wise to argue with someone who appears to be this disturbed.

That's nice of you to warn him, but he likely figured out your disturbance early on and took the risk.

Your lack of courtesy or germane contribution is noted.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel

On second thought, I don't think it's wise to argue with someone who appears to be this disturbed.

That's nice of you to warn him, but he likely figured out your disturbance early on and took the risk.

Your lack of courtesy or germane contribution is noted.

Likewise!

Now, don't you have one speaker to go listen to?

Quote:

Quote:

Just to make this perfectly clear: I more or less invited Steven to come here because of the sheer vitriol I perceived you and others slinging Sean's way.

To be even clearer, though, I've been a member here for several years...and a participant in the 'Great Debate' for much longer online. Some may know me as 'ssully' on RAHE, 'krabapple' elsewhere. Mr. Atkinson and I have certainly exchanged views before, for example. No n00b here.

Regarding this forum, there was a wilderness period where, for some odd reason, I was unable to actually log in, but Stephen Meijas kindly fixed that for me....after which point I simply didn't bother to do more than read the occasional post. The M. Frogs of the world may think of me as a sleeper cell, if it feeds their apparently dark worldview. Sometimes I forget how truly loony the 'phile fringe can be, and then I see things like accusation of professional fraud against Olive...

Do you guys know about the real Michigan J. Frog? It is supremely ironic that the impostor using that honored name thinks audio DBTs are useless. Because it turns out that Michigan J. Frog doesn't sing and dance for an audience (witnesses) but only for the person who finds him. Here it is on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGE8wVTvHF0

Later, there was a sequel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0DYj5t4SI0&feature=related

If you can stop laughing, you can read more information on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_J._Frog

I always thought Michigan picked the name intentionally, quite aware of the paradox of the 'real' Michigan J Frog.

It's also funny that you mentioned the 'real' Michigan J Frog!

'Real' and Michigan J Frog seems like an oxymoron!

Quote:

Quote:
So let's just drop the bit about price, ok? It is nothing more than veiled personal attacks in my experience.

My word! How you do get yourself worked up into a lather over things you do not understand. About things you could easily understand but choose not to.

WTF is wrong with you?!!!

You arrrived here just the other day and now you've jumped in my shit twice over things you truly haven't taken the time to understand. You don't read anything other than one post and then you respond with a pissed off attitude that really stinks. And this time you've got me really pissed off over your attitude!

And I'm very tired of your bullshit!

I don't care if you are a friend of John's, Obama's or the Queen's. I don't care if you designed the wires in the f'ing Space Shuttle. I don't care who you are, what hills you crawled out of or what you've done since that time. What you have proven you cannot do is f'ing read the thread before you open your mouth!

You need to read something for comprehension - what comes before and what comes after - before you start screaming about how unfair and biased I am. Your little tirades about how wrong I am, how stupid I am, have, in two trys, gone over the limit.

READ!!!!!!!! Read the GD thread before you unhinge your brain and start to type. Know what the hell you're talking about before you accuse someone of anything!

I'm not going to explain my post to you. If you want to know how far off course you are with your petty little comments, then go back and read the entire thread instead of the bits and pieces you then react to. Or is it that you really don't care what someone else has to say and you only read to find something to misinterpret and then go over the top about? What I posted had nothing to do with the cost of a product relative to its sound quality. If you had read the post I responded to, you would know that. But you didn't read. And you didn't read John's response either, did you? It was easier to just scream about something that doesn't exist, isn't it! You need to read!

BUUUUUT, NOOOOOOOOOO! You little jackbooted ass, you had to run off some knee jerk insult without knowing the facts. This is the second time you've done this to me since you arrived here the other day. I'm already quite tired of your inability to read before you open your mouth. I am trying my best to enjoy myself on this forum and you are making this very, very difficult with your insulting posts that constantly attack me for something I've never once said.

Go back and read the thread. Then I expect an apology from you.

And, if you read enough of the post you quoted, why aren't you unhinged about Ethan's insults to my system? Ethan has insulted my system on at least a half dozen occasions, without call and without knowing what components I own and without ever hearing my systsem. That's OK with you? You have no problem with Winer being a jerk, eh? But you'll jump me for something I never said? Is that it? Yeah, you didn't see those posts but then you didn't see what I posted before you jumped me either! Just who the hell are you anyway? Winer's momma?

Why aren't you upset that Ethan peered into my property? You'd enjoy having someone on an audio forum do that to you maybe? How about the outright lies Winer posted about me with the only intention being to directly insult me? Those are OK with you too? You don't mind those? Is that it?

You bitch and moan about attacks that never occured but you're OK with those that did!

Why the hell aren't you paying attention?

What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel?

You should seriously consider mixing in an anger management class or two.

How about that?! The title fits your post too!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So let's just drop the bit about price, ok? It is nothing more than veiled personal attacks in my experience.

My word! How you do get yourself worked up into a lather over things you do not understand. About things you could easily understand but choose not to.

WTF is wrong with you?!!!

You arrrived here just the other day and now you've jumped in my shit twice over things you truly haven't taken the time to understand. You don't read anything other than one post and then you respond with a pissed off attitude that really stinks. And this time you've got me really pissed off over your attitude!

And I'm very tired of your bullshit!

I don't care if you are a friend of John's, Obama's or the Queen's. I don't care if you designed the wires in the f'ing Space Shuttle. I don't care who you are, what hills you crawled out of or what you've done since that time. What you have proven you cannot do is f'ing read the thread before you open your mouth!

You need to read something for comprehension - what comes before and what comes after - before you start screaming about how unfair and biased I am. Your little tirades about how wrong I am, how stupid I am, have, in two trys, gone over the limit.

READ!!!!!!!! Read the GD thread before you unhinge your brain and start to type. Know what the hell you're talking about before you accuse someone of anything!

I'm not going to explain my post to you. If you want to know how far off course you are with your petty little comments, then go back and read the entire thread instead of the bits and pieces you then react to. Or is it that you really don't care what someone else has to say and you only read to find something to misinterpret and then go over the top about? What I posted had nothing to do with the cost of a product relative to its sound quality. If you had read the post I responded to, you would know that. But you didn't read. And you didn't read John's response either, did you? It was easier to just scream about something that doesn't exist, isn't it! You need to read!

BUUUUUT, NOOOOOOOOOO! You little jackbooted ass, you had to run off some knee jerk insult without knowing the facts. This is the second time you've done this to me since you arrived here the other day. I'm already quite tired of your inability to read before you open your mouth. I am trying my best to enjoy myself on this forum and you are making this very, very difficult with your insulting posts that constantly attack me for something I've never once said.

Go back and read the thread. Then I expect an apology from you.

And, if you read enough of the post you quoted, why aren't you unhinged about Ethan's insults to my system? Ethan has insulted my system on at least a half dozen occasions, without call and without knowing what components I own and without ever hearing my systsem. That's OK with you? You have no problem with Winer being a jerk, eh? But you'll jump me for something I never said? Is that it? Yeah, you didn't see those posts but then you didn't see what I posted before you jumped me either! Just who the hell are you anyway? Winer's momma?

Why aren't you upset that Ethan peered into my property? You'd enjoy having someone on an audio forum do that to you maybe? How about the outright lies Winer posted about me with the only intention being to directly insult me? Those are OK with you too? You don't mind those? Is that it?

You bitch and moan about attacks that never occured but you're OK with those that did!

Why the hell aren't you paying attention?

What exactly is wrong with you, you little weasel?

You should seriously consider mixing in an anger management class or two.

I suggest that everyone who agrees with Frank S' post above quote Jan and Frank's posts in their entirety and simply add the phrase "me too" .

Me toooooooo!

Quote:
Do you guys know about the real Michigan J. Frog? It is supremely ironic that the impostor using that honored name thinks audio DBTs are useless. Because it turns out that Michigan J. Frog doesn't sing and dance for an audience (witnesses) but only for the person who finds him. Here it is on YouTube:

Something tells me those mushrooms you ate weren't meant for a tossed salad. And how DARE you call me an imposter?!! I AM the "real" Michigan J. Frog! I worked for the WB for 2 years, and I have the scars to prove it!! Plus, I have more talent in my entire body than you have in your little pinky finger. So how DARE you call me an "imposter"!!! Either you PROVE your accusation or retract your false claim! Otherwise, you will hear from my lawyer for your libelous, slanderous libel!

Hey, man!

I owe you a PM.

This weekend is my tweak weekend.

Thank you for the effort you took.

I have questions, of course!

Gonna do it with a buddy.

I always thought Michigan picked the name intentionally, quite aware of the paradox of the 'real' Michigan J Frog.

You figured right. The name was chosen to reflect the paradox I live with, being a practitioner in the Beltist arts and all.

It's also funny that you mentioned the 'real' Michigan J Frog!
'Real' and Michigan J Frog seems like an oxymoron!

Shhh.... not so loud. It appears this "Xenophanes" is still working that one out. He probably thinks Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all meet together on Thanksgiving. (I'm sure there's a video on YouTube that proves that). I don't want to upset him.

Over the years, I've had a lot of nutballs on my case; Googling me, netstalking me, setting up a fake DBT to find out where I live, putting up a $50 bounty for anyone with info on me.... etc. I have to say, this is the first time anyone has Wikipediaed me to see if I was the "real" 'Michigan J. Frog' from the cartoonies. (Who's "evidence" that I wasn't, he found on a YouTube video. Clever boy!).

I can imagine it must have been devastating for him, to find out I wasn't.

Quote:
How about that?! The title fits your post too!

Yooooou toooooooo!

Quote:
I always thought Michigan picked the name intentionally, quite aware of the paradox of the 'real' Michigan J Frog.

You figured right. The name was chosen to reflect the paradox I live with, being a practitioner in the Beltist arts and all.

It's also funny that you mentioned the 'real' Michigan J Frog!
'Real' and Michigan J Frog seems like an oxymoron!

Shhh.... not so loud. It appears this "Xenophanes" is still working that one out. He probably thinks Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the easter bunny all meet together on Thanksgiving. (I'm sure there's a video on YouTube that proves that). I don't want to upset him.

Over the years, I've had a lot of nutballs on my case; Googling me, netstalking me, setting up a fake DBT to find out where I live, putting up a $50 bounty for anyone with info on me.... etc. I have to say, this is the first time anyone has Wikipediaed me to see if I was the "real" 'Michigan J. Frog' from the cartoonies. (Who's "evidence" that I wasn't, he found on a YouTube video. Clever boy!).

I can imagine it must have been devastating for him, to find out I wasn't.

Yep! So, a practitioner of the Beltist arts. Yeah, it's a perfect moniker for you: the Beltist arts that work for you alone but won't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses.

Brrruuupppp!

This whole thing is about subtle differences.

Introducing the gear for DBT and the complex atmosphere and possibly strange rooms..this CAN and WILL swamp those differences.

That's about all there is to it.

Some might say that if they are so small why are you worrying about it? It can't be important!

But then again, ALL beers and ALL spirits are about 99.9% identical in their construction and design (in their groups, ie beer and then spirits), yet when we go to the places where we buy them..we find a PHENOMENAL number of different types and flavors of drinks.

Yet they are for all intents and purposes, IDENTICAL.

WTF gets linear brained people's panties in knots is beyond me, at most times. I guess they simply don't have the cranial, mental and physical capacity to enjoy the many facets of reality that are out the unless all the little bits are lined up in rows and numbered.

From the more open side, the more free wheeling and creative side of life, with a smile and a dance I give you a heartily delivered:

"Fuck You, get a life!"

For it seems you desperately need to get both.

The whole idea is to get emotionally involved in MUSIC.

What's the problem?

What is the most interesting thing of all,is that the capacity for discernment in the brain and the capacity for detection of subtlety will GROW, if the linear minded people allow their creative sides to take control more often.

Relaxation allows for clarity, it is not concentration at all. Concentration and linear discernment is the problem, not the cure. You will get closer to your goal of perfection in quantification by letting go, NOT by gripping and getting wound tighter.

You have two distinct components to your mental design and processes. Gripping tightly with the one (linear-left brain) as if it is the entire whole, only shunts aside and parks 50% of the internal design. It's like cutting off one arm to help the other grip tighter. It's mental suicide.

Try furthering yourself with half of your mind shut off. See how well it works. This is, in effect, exactly what you are doing.

This posting will not make much sense until you learn how to let go.

And maybe after about 5-10 years in that direction (depends on the individual), you might then understand why DBT applied to high end audio, DBT as it exists today -is a sack of crap, useful to no-one.

Call DBT a 'linear minded putsch', if you will. For it is nothing less. it is Ignorance at work in one of it's finest and most refined forms, when it comes to High End Audio.

Quote:
Yep! So, a practitioner of the Beltist arts. Yeah, it's a perfect moniker for you: the Beltist arts that work for you alone but won't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses.

Brrruuupppp!

You know Xenophobia, this is the first time I've ever heard of you, or said anything to you. So like, where exactly are you getting all this personal information about me? Unless you're claiming to be a mind reader, show me where I said it only works for me, or doesn't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses?

You have developed some kind of fetish about my name, but yet you show you don't even understand the paradox of Michigan J. Frog. So according to what you just wrote, the frog can't sing or dance, because it hasn't been proven in "controlled blind tests in front of witnesses". Like I said, clever boy! Go study your Michigan J. Frog YouTube videos some more, and when you are ready to back up your claims about me, come back.

Quote:
But then again, ALL beers and ALL spirits are about 99.9% identical in their construction and design (in their groups, ie beer and then spirits), yet when we go to the places where we buy them..we find a PHENOMENAL number of different types and flavors of drinks.

This kind of utter scientific inaccuracy exhibits the antifactual nature of everything the quoted poster has said. I would suggest that you actually examine the chemical analysis of drinks, etc, and then reconsider your analogy.

As to your completely bogus arguments regarding DBT's, well, it's not surprising given your stunning mistakes regarding alcoholic (or not) beverages, but you are in fact wrong, there is nothing wrong with DBT's, done right, of course. There is no desensitization, there need be no more equipment, etc.

In the future, it would be wise of you to be considerably more informed before making an attempt at an authoritive statement.

This whole thing is about subtle differences.
Introducing the gear for DBT and the complex atmosphere and possibly strange rooms..this CAN and WILL swamp those differences.
That's about all there is to it.

Not quite. DBT's do not have to require special gear, and could be done in the listener's own listening room with his own gear.

WTF gets linear brained people's panties in knots is beyond me, at most times. I guess they simply don't have the cranial, mental and physical capacity to enjoy the many facets of reality that are out the unless all the little bits are lined up in rows and numbered.

You hit the nail good on that one.

The whole idea is to get emotionally involved in MUSIC.

DBT-fanatics can't get emotionally involved in MUSIC. They can't measure what gives them an emotional connection to music, so they deny it exists.

This posting will not make much sense until you learn how to let go.
And maybe after about 5-10 years in that direction (depends on the individual), you might then understand why DBT applied to high end audio, DBT as it exists today -is a sack of crap, useful to no-one.
Call DBT a 'linear minded putsch', if you will. For it is nothing less. it is Ignorance at work in one of it's finest and most refined forms, when it comes to High End Audio.

Mos' def. Audio DBT's are ignorance personified. If I believed in them, my sound today would be atrocious, to where I could barely appreciate the difference between Celine Dion and Amy Winehouse. The worst part is, I would not know that, because I'd be living firmly in "DBT-denial". And hence my choice on whether to pick up the latest from Amy Winehouse or Celine Dion would inevitably fall upon whichever sells for less.

Quote:

As to your completely bogus arguments regarding DBT's, well, it's not surprising given your stunning mistakes regarding alcoholic (or not) beverages, but you are in fact wrong, there is nothing wrong with DBT's, done right, of course. There is no desensitization, there need be no more equipment, etc.

Speaking of "completely bogus arguments", you have (as usual), given nothing but vigorous assertion in your rebuttal, in place of evidence. Were you hoping no one would notice? The moment you come up with something better than "Yes it is", "No it isn't", then you can start talking about "making an attempt at an authoritative statement".

"Stand and deliver!" (reg. tm.)

Quote:
In the future, it would be wise of you to be considerably more informed before making an attempt at an authoritive statement.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Quote:

Quote:

As to your completely bogus arguments regarding DBT's, well, it's not surprising given your stunning mistakes regarding alcoholic (or not) beverages, but you are in fact wrong, there is nothing wrong with DBT's, done right, of course. There is no desensitization, there need be no more equipment, etc.

Speaking of "completely bogus arguments", you have (as usual), given nothing but vigorous assertion in your rebuttal, in place of evidence. Were you hoping no one would notice? The moment you come up with something better than "Yes it is", "No it isn't", then you can start talking about "making an attempt at an authoritative statement".

"Stand and deliver!" (reg. tm.)

Unlike the quackery in the anti-dbt post I was referring to, I know what I'm talking about and you know it as well, given your quote from netnews. Ergo, I actualy get to say things like that. What's more, you knew that when you attempted your propaganda.

You don't get to speak with authority, unless you'd like to provide clear evidence of your identity, your proven expertise in DBT's, etc.

Given your assertion that

Quote:
DBT-fanatics can't get emotionally involved in MUSIC.

I think it's pretty clear, just from that, that you are disqualified as speaking from authority.

Michigan, my man, don't stress a drop over JJ.

He thinks a one speaker trial extrapolates to an industry-wide conclusion.

Maybe Michigan can mail JJ a logic book as an act of diplomacy.

"If a one speaker trial can be arranged that failed to demonstrate a DBT difference, then the audio inustry is dishonest."

Brilliant.

Quote:
Michigan, my man, don't stress a drop over JJ.

He thinks a one speaker trial extrapolates to an industry-wide conclusion.

Maybe Michigan can mail JJ a logic book as an act of diplomacy.

"If a one speaker trial can be arranged that failed to demonstrate a DBT difference, then the audio inustry is dishonest."

Brilliant.

jj is a real scientist expert in audio psychometrics. You should be happy he is willing to share some of what he knows here. Have any of you done anything comparable to this:

http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

Quote:

Quote:
Yep! So, a practitioner of the Beltist arts. Yeah, it's a perfect moniker for you: the Beltist arts that work for you alone but won't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses.

Brrruuupppp!

You know Xenophobia, this is the first time I've ever heard of you, or said anything to you. So like, where exactly are you getting all this personal information about me? Unless you're claiming to be a mind reader, show me where I said it only works for me, or doesn't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses?

You have developed some kind of fetish about my name, but yet you show you don't even understand the paradox of Michigan J. Frog. So according to what you just wrote, the frog can't sing or dance, because it hasn't been proven in "controlled blind tests in front of witnesses". Like I said, clever boy! Go study your Michigan J. Frog YouTube videos some more, and when you are ready to back up your claims about me, come back.

I know that the real Michigan J. Frog understands Martian, and you obviously don't.

I'm afraid you haven't understood my point. I have never maintained that Michigan J. Frog cannot sing or dance.

Quote:

jj is a real scientist expert in audio psychometrics. You should be happy he is willing to share some of what he knows here. Have any of you done anything comparable to this:

http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

So, you agree with his take that a one-speaker trial justifies the conslusion that the audio industry is dishonest?

Appeal to Authority. Yes, it seems so logical!

He may be good at other stuff, but his take on the conclusion of that 'study' is idiotic.

Remember, the Verance Watermark passed some DBT's before being roundly dismissed.

Quote:

Quote:

jj is a real scientist expert in audio psychometrics. You should be happy he is willing to share some of what he knows here. Have any of you done anything comparable to this:

http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

So, you agree with his take that a one-speaker trial justifies the conslusion that the audio industry is dishonest?

Appeal to Authority. Yes, it seems so logical!

He may be good at other stuff, but his take on the conclusion of that 'study' is idiotic.

Remember, the Verance Watermark passed some DBT's before being roundly dismissed.

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. It sounds totally irrelevant to the thread, and in any case, it sounds like hyperbole. Link please.

You obviously didn't read the link you provided to the Nizkor project:

"This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject."

jj most certainly an authority on the subject of audio DBTs.

If you think that his opinion about the test in question applies to "the audio industry," then fine.

I find it flawed, myself.

If he were an authority on the subject, then I'd expect him to see that the conclusion is overly broad.

YMMV.

Quote:
If you think that his opinion about the test in question applies to "the audio industry," then fine.

I find it flawed, myself.

If he were an authority on the subject, then I'd expect him to see that the conclusion is overly broad.

YMMV.

So, Sean Olive said it. What's it got to do with jj?

jj said he wasn't calling anyone dishonest. Or didn't you read that? So, sorry, jj is an expert on audio DBTs and a number of other things. Why don't you ask Wes Philips or John Atkinson whether jj is expert or not? It would be interesting to see their reply.

Anyone who has to use the word science or scientific in practically every sentence, well, that's just plain fallacious. We have all read Zen and the Art of Debunkery. We all know how the system according to Randi works.

Cheerio

Quote:
Have any of you done anything comparable to this:

Quote:

Quote:

It's quite typical of someone trying to falsely sway an argument by using ad-hominem rhetoric denying that their opponent is a human being, deserving of being treated as such.

Quote:

This kind of utter scientific inaccuracy exhibits the antifactual nature of everything the quoted poster has said. I would suggest that you actually examine the chemical analysis of drinks, etc, and then reconsider your analogy.

As to your completely bogus arguments regarding DBT's, well, it's not surprising given your stunning mistakes regarding alcoholic (or not) beverages, but you are in fact wrong, there is nothing wrong with DBT's, done right, of course. There is no desensitization, there need be no more equipment, etc.

In the future, it would be wise of you to be considerably more informed before making an attempt at an authoritive statement.

Not to my recollection I haven't.

"In the future, it would be wise of you to be considerably more informed before making an attempt at an authoritive statement."

Now, I'm no English professor, but I'm pretty darn sure authoritive is not a word. And there are waay too many adverbs or something in that sentence.

I'm no English major either but I would say there are too many "you's".

But then I was told I had "confuted" ideas. Not people or an argument but ideas. I didn't think that was possible.

I think he meant y'all. Inside joke.

Quote:

If he were an authority on the subject, then I'd expect him to see that the conclusion is overly broad.

YMMV.

In other words, you require all "real authorities" to agree with your own unsupported opinion.

There are many issues that have permeated this thread, from validity of DBT's (and they are, absolutely, valid when done right) to Sean's original work, to the illegimate focusing on "one speaker", to the price of somebody's receiver.

These issues have been repeatedly confused by any number of individuals who apparently wish to grasp at any straw in order to justify their extremely serious, extremely offensive, worldwide-readable attacks on Sean Olive, who most certainly, despite the fact he does not agree with "Buddha" any more than I do, also qualifies as an expert in audio psychometrics.

Just remember that near the top of Einstein's 12 tenants of good science, is the tenant: Urinate on all convention. (Ignore all convention)

I apply it in hearty fashion on a regular basis. There would be no advancement without it, as Einstein so thoroughly understood - as any reasonable man does.

Quote:
(monotone robot voice: ON)
jj is a r-e-a-l scientifical guy. You should be h-a-p-p-y that he is willing to w-a-s-h your mind free of cardinal high end a-u-d-i-o sins. Your s-i-s-t-e-m will sound like a car radio from Czeckhoslovakia in 1952. But you will be b-e-t-t-e-r 4 it. We will all be b-e-t-t-e-r 4 it. Listen to j.j. He is the light and the way. He is the only 1 who can guide us to the DBT mothership. He is scientifical. U R not. He is psycho-metric. U R nothing-metric. He is the TrVth. "All hail and bow to j.j., the Holy Priest of the DBT Church of Latter Day Pscyhometrix". Have some delicious kool-aid. It will make everything sound the same, and you will save lots and lots of money on your stereo system.

Have any of you done anything comparable to this?:

j.j.'s classroom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqSZhwu1Rwo

(monotone robot voice: OFF)

You know, I'm really starting to be persuaded by your pitch. What do you think, brother Xenobot... should I sell all my worldly posessions now and go and join you and your leader, jj the all-knowing psycho (metric) curmudgeon, in this Heavenly Cult of the DBT you all belong to... or should I wait for Hailey's comet to roll 'round again?

Quote:
I know that the real Michigan J. Frog understands Martian, and you obviously don't.

See, there you go again. As with jj, you don't know what you keep mistakenly thinking you know. I don't understand "Martian". Never did, never will. You are clearly confusing me with my old friend, Marvin the Martian. (Who, I don't know if you know this, happens to post under the alias of "j.j., the curmudgeon and all-around grouch").

Quote:
I'm afraid you haven't understood my point. I have never maintained that Michigan J. Frog cannot sing or dance.

It appears you haven't understood your own point. You wrote:

Do you guys know about the real Michigan J. Frog? It is supremely ironic that the impostor using that honored name thinks audio DBTs are useless. Because it turns out that Michigan J. Frog doesn't sing and dance for an audience (witnesses) but only for the person who finds him.

Now let me explain your own logic to you. You, a DBT-supporter, said it was "supremely ironic" that I believe DBTs are useless, because "the REAL Michigan J. Frog" (as you allege I'm not, yet another claim you have failed to support), can't sing or dance when pressed to do so in front of witnesses. Earlier, you wrote:

Yeah, it's a perfect moniker for you: the Beltist arts that work for you alone but won't work in controlled blind tests in front of witnesses.

Now since you have already suggested that I do not hear what I claim to hear, or can not hear what I claim to hear when there are witnesses present, because I don't follow you DBT-cultists and test my claims that way, then by the phrase "supremely ironic" (or "coincidental"), you are also suggesting that whomever you think is the "real" Michigan J. Frog, well that frog can't really do what his owner claims he can do either (namely, sing and dance), when witnesses are present and he has to prove his abilities.

I could be mistaken of course, if it turns out you are in fact suggesting that, like my on-screen persona**, I can "sing and dance" (meaning that I can really truly hear whatever I claim to hear, despite the fact that I won't prove I can by doing so when there are witnesses around). And that I can do so, despite not using or believing in DBTs, and that so-called "audio DBTs" are a crock of shit invented by marketing dept's in large audio companies like Sean Olive's "harman int'l", to dupe the public into believing the poor performance of cheap consumer-grade audio is just as good as quality audiophile-grade audio, without having to pay extra. But somehow, I don't think you are suggesting that. Especially not when I throw your earlier quote up on the marquee.

Apart from belonging to a fabulous DBT cult that eschews 99% of all reality that audiophiles experience for a nifty and convenient belief system that more or less says every bloody thing you ever think you heard sounds the same and that if you have any doubts about that, you should shut up and waste no time handing your brain over to authority figures (self-professed, mind you) and their infallible DBT tests and let them do your thinking for you, let me point out another thing you and j.j. both have in common: Neither of you were able to provide evidence to support your claims, when I challenged you to do so. But I guess trivial things like providing "evidence" isn't necessary when you are a member of The Audio-DBT Church of Latter Day Pscyhometrix. As I have come to understand it, "evidence", is only something you demand of your opponents on the internet. Since you all "invented the TrVth", it is clear you have no need to defend it. So I guess all we need to know from you guys is... when will we get to see the inside of Marvin's mothership?

** (BTW, I'd like to clear something up here once and for good. I really -can't- sing or dance. I'm a frog for God's sakes, how many have you seen doing that?! Warner Bros. hired a fellow by the name of Charles Barkley (no, not THAT "Charles Barkley"), who was a song and dance man for theatrical work (teaching understudies, mostly). He was supposed to teach me to be a world-class hoofer and crooner, in under three weeks. Well, the idea looked good on paper, if you were three sheets to the wind. As Chuck often was. The croaking segments that followed the theatrics, were about the only things I could do right. Yes, I know you "think" I can sing and dance on screen, and in the end, they managed to work things out. But what few people who did not work on that shoot know is, most of that stuff was done later in rotoscoping. I won't say who did the singing for me, because I believe some things are best left a mystery).

Quote:

Quote:

If he were an authority on the subject, then I'd expect him to see that the conclusion is overly broad.

YMMV.

In other words, you require all "real authorities" to agree with your own unsupported opinion.

There are many issues that have permeated this thread, from validity of DBT's (and they are, absolutely, valid when done right) to Sean's original work, to the illegimate focusing on "one speaker", to the price of somebody's receiver.

These issues have been repeatedly confused by any number of individuals who apparently wish to grasp at any straw in order to justify their extremely serious, extremely offensive, worldwide-readable attacks on Sean Olive, who most certainly, despite the fact he does not agree with "Buddha" any more than I do, also qualifies as an expert in audio psychometrics.

Not grasping at straws at all.

Sean did a one speaker trial, and extrapolated a result to a conclusion that the "audio industry needs to grow up" and the overly broad conclusion was rolled into calling sighted listening dishonest.

This was diagreed with, but the pie eyed DBT zombies cannot seem to let go of their religion long enough to see that the study does not support the conclusion. They just monomaniacally chant "DBT" without looking at the claim being made.

Title of article: "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests."

Conclusion: "It