DBT in audio - a protocol

**EddieM** · January 13th 06, 02:01 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions
about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my
reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the
question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far
too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance.

Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables?
Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion?

If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going...

Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied
to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So
I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up
this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

**Don Pearce** · January 13th 06, 07:33 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions
about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my
reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the
question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far
too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance.

Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables?
Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion?

If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going...

Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied
to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So
I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up
this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

**Arny Krueger** · January 13th 06, 11:20 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing:

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-)

**Keith G** · January 13th 06, 11:32 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing:

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-)

You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO
membership...???

**Arny Krueger** · January 13th 06, 11:38 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing:

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-)

You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO
membership...???

It appears to me that this important point might escape notice by members of
either group.

**George M. Middius** · January 13th 06, 12:21 PM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

Keith G said:

You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO
membership...???

Actually, Turdborg was reinforcing the universally held perception that
he is insane with still more evidence.

Would you like fries with that?

**EddieM** · January 14th 06, 02:28 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions
about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my
reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the
question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far
too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance.

Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables?
Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion?

If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going...

Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied
to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So
I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up
this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce? As I recall, the last time we had a
straight forward discussion and exchanges of ideas pertaining
to the subject of audio testing as here, you recklessly circumnavigated
the points I raise with total disregard.

How can I be assured at this time, Mr. Pearce, that should I pay
attention and heedfully reflect upon your testing protocol that you'll
be responding in kind to issues I raise with confidence?

Pearce Consulting

**ScottW** · January 14th 06, 02:33 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions
about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my
reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the
question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far
too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance.

Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables?
Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion?

If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going...

Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied
to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So
I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up
this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW

**George M. Middius** · January 14th 06, 02:40 AM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

Yappity-yappity-yap.

How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain[sic] from the rest of your post....you can't.So forget it.

How did that IQ Tonic work out for you, Terrierborg?

**EddieM** · January 15th 06, 06:17 PM posted to uk.rec.audio,rec.audio.opinion

ScottW wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.

Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.

How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW

How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond
and what is it about my post that you think it would not be
possible? And what with this tonic about?

The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.