Laurence Payne in the Arse Shithead
 

"Laurence Payne in the Arse ****head "


Most folk have heard of ABX, so I mentioned it as a reference WITHOUT
commenting on how or how well it works.

Some people might not understand that calling it a "fine piece of
design" meant you didn't like it :-)


** The ABX switching box is a device ( ie a piece of design) - and since
I
have never seen one I expressed no personal opinion about it.

However, I made NO mention WHATEVER of the ABX testing procedure - so
it is utterly ** FALSE and ABSURD ** to claim that I praised it.

Comes as no surprise to me that smug, congenital ****heads like Payne and
Arny saw no problem in doing exactly that.

Why don't you write half a page of unemotional reasoned argument on
why you think the ABX method is flawed and/or unnecessarily
complicated?


** Time to go back to what YOU challenged me over:

1. Arny stupidly and falsely claimed here, just yesterday, that I wrote an
article in praise of his ABX comparison system.

2. You then mindlessly chimed in on his side.

3. The facts clearly show both of you to be UTTERLY WRONG.


Now, Arny is a compewter geek and pompous old fool plus a COLOSSAL FAKE
when it comes to matters audio.

OTOH, he is still quite a nice guy compared to utterly ignorant SCUM like
you - Payne.

So kindly drop dead, ASAP.



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 12:48:19 +0100, Laurence Payne
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:58:33 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Most folk have heard of ABX, so I mentioned it as a reference WITHOUT
commenting on how or how well it works.

Some people might not understand that calling it a "fine piece of
design" meant you didn't like it :-)


** The ABX switching box is a device ( ie a piece of design) - and since I
have never seen one I expressed no personal opinion about it.

However, I made NO mention WHATEVER of the ABX testing procedure - so
it is utterly ** FALSE and ABSURD ** to claim that I praised it.

Comes as no surprise to me that smug, congenital ****heads like Payne and
Arny saw no problem in doing exactly that.

Why don't you write half a page of unemotional reasoned argument on
why you think the ABX method is flawed and/or unnecessarily
complicated? Then we just might be inclined to take you seriously.

Or you could serve up some more personal abuse. Would that be more
fun? :-)

Laurence Payne in the Arse Shithead
 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:55:42 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


** Time to go back to what YOU challenged me over:

1. Arny stupidly and falsely claimed here, just yesterday, that I wrote an
article in praise of his ABX comparison system.

2. You then mindlessly chimed in on his side.

3. The facts clearly show both of you to be UTTERLY WRONG.


Now, Arny is a compewter geek and pompous old fool plus a COLOSSAL FAKE
when it comes to matters audio.

OTOH, he is still quite a nice guy compared to utterly ignorant SCUM like
you - Payne.

So kindly drop dead, ASAP.

Now, if you hadn't snipped my final sentence...

"Or you could serve up some more personal abuse. Would that be more
fun? :-)"

.... that might have been quite funny :-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

Phil Allison wrote..

in
light of actual experience using the A-B switching box device with other
people. Here is the article again:

http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm

An interesting device Phil. Can you
sum up your experiences and
impressions of using it. From what I
can gather it would appear to uphold
the maxim often stated by Arny and
others, which is roughly:

"Given two competently designed power
amplifiers working withing their
design limits, differences in sound
quality are non-existant or minimal
and or imagined.

Is this correct?

Frequency response of the ear
 

"UnsteadyKen"
Phil Allison wrote..

in
light of actual experience using the A-B switching box device with other
people. Here is the article again:

http://sound.westhost.com/absw.htm

An interesting device Phil. Can you
sum up your experiences and
impressions of using it. From what I
can gather it would appear to uphold
the maxim often stated by Arny and
others, which is roughly:

"Given two competently designed power
amplifiers working withing their
design limits, differences in sound
quality are non-existant or minimal
and or imagined.

Is this correct?


** The immediate reaction of every person given the remote switch to press,
while seated in the ideal position to enjoy a stereo recording of their
choice, was " this button is not working ". Generally, I would then turn
off one of the two amplifiers to demonstrate that it was.

Having turned the amp back on, the test continued, maybe with another
recording of their choice.

Same result, every time.

If the significance of this is lost on you - there is no point in trying to
explain it.



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:58:50 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

An interesting device Phil. Can you
sum up your experiences and
impressions of using it. From what I
can gather it would appear to uphold
the maxim often stated by Arny and
others, which is roughly:

"Given two competently designed power
amplifiers working withing their
design limits, differences in sound
quality are non-existant or minimal
and or imagined.

Is this correct?


** The immediate reaction of every person given the remote switch to press,
while seated in the ideal position to enjoy a stereo recording of their
choice, was " this button is not working ". Generally, I would then turn
off one of the two amplifiers to demonstrate that it was.

Having turned the amp back on, the test continued, maybe with another
recording of their choice.

Same result, every time.

If the significance of this is lost on you - there is no point in trying to
explain it.

The significance is that Phil agrees with Arny. Decent amplifiers
sound the same.

Frequency response of the ear
 

Phil Allison wrote..

If the significance of this is lost on you - there is no point in trying to
explain it.

I got it, I just wondered if you had come across any situation in which
a definite difference could reliably be heard. For example a flea
powered amp vs mammoth Krell type thingy both driving insensitive
current hungry speakers and so forth.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"UnsteadyKen" invalid@invalid wrote in message
m...
Phil Allison wrote..

If the significance of this is lost on you - there is no point in trying
to
explain it.

I got it, I just wondered if you had come across any situation in which
a definite difference could reliably be heard. For example a flea
powered amp vs mammoth Krell type thingy both driving insensitive
current hungry speakers and so forth.


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound different
(as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine scribblers would
have you believe) or not is not the point; it's whether or not they *appear*
to, to you. Like a distant oasis in a desert - it's not a case of it being
real or a mirage, but whether or not you can *see* it.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;

*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.

it's whether or not they *appear* to, to you. Like a distant oasis in a
desert - it's not a case of it being real or a mirage, but whether or not
you can *see* it.

So as far as you are concerned a mirage is just as good as a real oasis,
just as long as you can *see* it!

David.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


This question has no meaningful answer - whether amplifiers sound
different (as many designers, manufacturers, salesmen and magazine
scribblers would have you believe) or not is not the point;

*Who's* "point"? It may be your point, it certainly isn't mine.


Who cares?


it's whether or not they *appear* to, to you. Like a distant oasis in a
desert - it's not a case of it being real or a mirage, but whether or not
you can *see* it.

So as far as you are concerned a mirage is just as good as a real oasis,
just as long as you can *see* it!


Sure, if all you want to do is look at it; the illusion falls apart if and
when you want a drink - which is a bit like wanting Bjork's autograph after
listening to one of her recordings in your own room.

(Or the Chipmunks, Spice Girls or Micky and Griff or whoever else it is you
listen to....)