"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

If you Google dummy head recording without the quotation marks you get
more than 100,000 hits.

'about' 116,000 here


I'm sure everyone will be fascinated by this.

1,760 with the quote marks. Probably the number is changing because of the
natter in here.

Graham

Phil Allison wrote:

"Arny Krueger"

Do some homework, first. Google gives 100,000 hits for "dummy head
recording".

** Nope - its only 1750 hits for the phrase.

Try it now you blind bat !

Graham

"Keith G" wrote in message


"Phil Anus Hole" wrote


That'll be my other half - she's probably got it set for
*no titties* or somesuch.....

(I learned a long time ago to take Arnie's claims with
a shovelful of salt - he's like a lot of people who try
to *speak with authority* when most of the time they've
no idea..!!! ;-)

Joke, as the truth is quite definately otherwise.

** Arny is a compewter geek by nature and inclination.

Phil is just upset that I invented ABX tests of of audio equipment, while he
could do no better than write an article praising it.

Like any computer, he can only manipulate the data - but not illuminate
it.

The evidence is he can't even do that accurately....

Particularly when people entertain themselves by misinterpreting what was
written.

By this time someone has figured out that the quotes were there to delimit
the search text from the rest of the text, not to define the actual search
string.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message


"Phil Anus Hole" wrote


That'll be my other half - she's probably got it set for
*no titties* or somesuch.....

(I learned a long time ago to take Arnie's claims with
a shovelful of salt - he's like a lot of people who try
to *speak with authority* when most of the time they've
no idea..!!! ;-)

Joke, as the truth is quite definately otherwise.


Might want to check your spelling there (no typo - keys too far apart)....


Particularly when people entertain themselves by misinterpreting what was
written.

By this time someone has figured out that the quotes were there to delimit
the search text from the rest of the text, not to define the actual search
string.


It's your own fault, you should have made your point more clearly with the
phrase 'sans quotes' or somesuch - or maybe just have tidied your search up
in the first place?

"Arny Krueger"
"Phil Allison"
** Arny is a compewter geek by nature and inclination.

Like any computer, he can only manipulate the data - but not illuminate
it.

Phil is just upset that I invented ABX tests of of audio equipment, while
he could do no better than write an article praising it.


** Well, goodness me - Arny has just provided us all with a perfect
example of exactly what I just complained about him.

I did NOT write that article on the ESP site in order to praise ABX
testing,
but rather to BURY it !!
---------------------------

Here is the link, please read it and if at all possible carry out the simple
test
it describes.

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

Once set up, the test result is immediately apparent, definitive and
convincing to all but the congenitally mentally retarded - naturally,
the latter group includes all you audiophools.

This is of course entirely unlike the long, tedious, complicated &
ultimately
unconvincing statistical method used by the literal thinking Arny.



...... Phil

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:24:00 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** Well, goodness me - Arny has just provided us all with a perfect
example of exactly what I just complained about him.

I did NOT write that article on the ESP site in order to praise ABX
testing,
but rather to BURY it !!

But what you SAID was:

"Many of you will know about the ABX system for doing audio
comparisons. No doubt it is a very fine piece of design but out of
reach for the average person. Some years ago I felt that a much
simpler device would at least allow me to do comparisons on power
amplifiers while the music played in a similar way to ABX."

You praise ABX but find it too expensive to set up. Your use of "at
least" states that you see your method as a cut-price alternative
which is however adequate for some purposes.

Though I really don't know why I bother when you children start
bickering :-)

"Laurence Payne"
"Phil Allison"

** Well, goodness me - Arny has just provided us all with a perfect
example of exactly what I just complained about him.

I did NOT write that article on the ESP site in order to praise ABX
testing,but rather to BURY it !!

But what you SAID was:

"Many of you will know about the ABX system for doing audio
comparisons. No doubt it is a very fine piece of design but out of
reach for the average person. Some years ago I felt that a much
simpler device would at least allow me to do comparisons on power
amplifiers while the music played in a similar way to ABX."

You praise ABX but find it too expensive to set up.

** Nothing like what I said at all !!

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


Your use of "at least" states that you see your method as a cut-price
alternative


** Nothing like what I said.

The " at least " refers to power amplifiers being the most suitable subject
for my test - and they were the only things I ( and most folk ) wanted to
compare.

The lower cost is simply due to the elegance of the concept, which is that
of an instant, seamless changeover at the whim of the listener.

This is of course ENTIRELY unlike the long, tedious, complicated &
ultimately unconvincing statistical method used by the literal thinking Arny
with his original ABX contraption.

So it buries it.



....... Phil

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:10:02 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

But what you SAID was:

"Many of you will know about the ABX system for doing audio
comparisons. No doubt it is a very fine piece of design but out of
reach for the average person. Some years ago I felt that a much
simpler device would at least allow me to do comparisons on power
amplifiers while the music played in a similar way to ABX."

You praise ABX but find it too expensive to set up.

** Nothing like what I said at all !!

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 :-)

In fact, if you cut the veiled (and not-veiled) sarcasm and other
flowery language out of the whole article, it would be a great
improvement. The sad thing is, you're probably right. But you come
across as a sad amateur with an obsession.

"Laurence Payne in the Arse Fool "


But what you SAID was:

"Many of you will know about the ABX system for doing audio
comparisons. No doubt it is a very fine piece of design but out of
reach for the average person. Some years ago I felt that a much
simpler device would at least allow me to do comparisons on power
amplifiers while the music played in a similar way to ABX."

You praise ABX but find it too expensive to set up.

** Nothing like what I said at all !!

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.



In fact, if you cut the veiled (and not-veiled) sarcasm and other
flowery language out of the whole article,


** I used no " flowery " language at all.

The veiled sarcasm ( contained in several warnings ) is well justified, 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

The last thing most folk want ( especially rabid audiophools) is to have
their long held beliefs & golden ear pronouncements proved * completely
wrong * - and so be made to look a damn fool by anyone or anything.

So, I gave fair warning to all and hoped that would goad the bravest souls
who read the item into action.

Cos it is a 100% certainty that no posturing, gutless audiophool scumbags
ever would.




...... Phil

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? :-)