Re: Scottie Terrierborg's ongoing dread of DBTs

On 27 Iun, 16:52, "ScottW" <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Clyde Slick" <Mr.clydesl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:cf287e1d-95b6-4909-a297-18381af6d10c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 27 Iun, 15:42, "ScottW" <Scott...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



:You ought to step back from name calling.

Fuckoff, you invoked Arny.

:I did not 'invoke' Arny, at least not to
:his shittiness or his misbehaviors. I was talking about his audio
:viewpoints, his assertions about specs and audibility
:LOL!!! Its an audio topic!!!

Exactly, and trying to discredit my POV by
some vague comparison to Arny's is BS.



You misread, misinterpreted and just don't
understand. I stated a point his point of
'view which seems similar to yours
amps with same specs sound the same.
If you don't agree with Arny on that, correct that
assertion, with an explanation of your view.
IT WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO
DISCREDIT BY COMPARISON

and I did NOT attack you
I did not call you any names, and I DID NOT swear at you.

:I argue and disagree with you based upon
:the content of your assertions

How many times did you toss Arny into this?
You're full of ***.

:I was talking about his audio views.

His views aren't mine. Hell, you don't even
understand my views so smearing them
as vaguely comparable to Arny's remains
BS.



You have been presenting your views here on RAO.
if we misiinterpret you, set us straight
by explaining them to us.

:Yes, I don't lke them and I think
:\they are discredited.

Don't turn this into another fucking Arny
discussion.


Don't worry, it has become
a SCott discussion.


:But I wasn't
:talking about the kp issues.

:I argue the assertions, not the person.
:I haven't callled you any names.
:But go ahead, you can call me some name, say, like
:"2pid II", if you really want to, I don't care.
:Your hole, your shovel.

Your Arnyitis. I'm sick of dealing with it.

LOL!!!!!

:I wasn't talking about Arny at all!
:I was talking about Shhh!

Parsing paragraphs now?
This gets more tedious with every BS
assertion.




No, I am telling you waht I said.
it was meant as a comparison to Shh!
I reread it, and is apparant as such.
I was facetiously talking about being called "2pid II"
now, tell me how you interpreted that
as me
talking about Arny rather than me taqlking about Shhh!
WHAT????? Does Arny call you "2pid" now?
Has Shhh stopped doing that????



:Just like with Shhh!, those kind of
:antics expose immaturity.
:I really do think he is no more than an obnoxious teenager.

:as to the issues, we are back to 10 years
:ago here on RAO, as to whether signal
:our current measure of signal differences
:accounts for all the differences we can hear.

You want to have a rational discussion,
try to make sense. The above sentence is
trash.

:I don't have to agree with you.
:oh, i inserted one extra word up there
:big deal.'Like you never did that.

Nobody says you do but your if your basis
for disagreemnt is BS, I'm gonna tell you.
And so far, you've made little rational sense.


FINE!
And I can tell you that you are wrong.
But I don't call you stupid.




You simply have to accept that every device
in audio reproduction right up to the speaker
provides one thing and one thing only.
A signal. Everything it passes on in the
chain of audio reproduction is in the signal.
If two items produce identical signals, there
is no way on this earth that under identical
conditions, they will sound different.

:You are NOT listening.'

:I am saying that signal measurements fromscopes
: account for ecerything

Oh brother.  Do I have to insert the necessary critical
words in every paragraph to get your meaning back on track?

Let's go back to a few posts ago where you said,
"a sscope signal fairly unidimensional analysis
and does not account for all
differences."

This is a completely and totally ridiculous statement.
If there's more to an audio components performance than
than the signal is delivers....it must be in the glow
of the ambience it creates, cuz there is nothing else.


Just measure them correctly, rememeber, lots is
going on at the same time, you just can't
disect part of it form the combination.



:I say, our measurements are too simplistic and don't tell the whole
:story.

"Our measurements" is a meaningless statement.
Our lab runs tests on RF amplifers. The basic tests take about
10 minutes. An engineering characterization with automated test equipment
can take 2 days at 1 power level, 1 supply level, and 1 temperature
and no vibration and uncontrolled humidity.
If you want to completely characterize an amp to the maximum extent possible
it will take an infinite amount of time. You'll simply have to sample
the infinite possible number of operating conditions.
This doesn't mean our measurements are inadequate or not understood,
it's a matter of practicality.

:I have heard many creations that supposedly
:have exceptionalmeasure signals
:that sound like relative crap.

And I fully expect that if you really understood signal measurement
you'd be able to tell why the claim was BS. But you don't.
And your personal preference isn't for exceptional signal integrity
anyway so WTF did you expect?
Yet you still keep going on about something that is completely
irrelevant to a simple difference test.
There are no signal measurements involved unless you consider
level matching a measurement. I don't.

:LOL!!!
:you are applying the comparative (diff) signal tests to audible
:differences

Applying is too vague to discuss. I have no idea what you
mean by applying.



take an ESL course.
you apply what you get from the dif analysis
into making the assumption of waht you'will or will not hear, should
you (God forbid!!!) actually do comparative listening between the
units.
If you get a null result form the dif test, you don't even bother
auditioning them!
not that you would do that anyway!!!





:I don't care how easy it is to administer.
:Its meaningless, to the extent you
:are applying it as a reason to\bypass actual listening comparisons.

Listening comparisons are often ineffective to identify subtle differences
or identify same.  People suck at it. You need lots of trials, have
to apply confidence limits, remove external influences etc. etc.
People are simply inconsistent and inadequate.
As a piece of audio test equipment, people are the least accurate,
least repeatable, lowest performing piece of gear ever applied
in the history of man.



Who says I am talking about subtle differences?
I AM NOT.

and, get this
PEOPLE ARE NOT ITEMS OF TEST EQUIPMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat
PEOPLE ARE NOT ITEMS OF TEST EQUIPMENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!







.

Loading