Frequency response of the ear
 

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

--
Eiron.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Eiron"

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording


** Your own head would be the obvious & ideal candidate ...


and the effect on frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.


** Use ears just like Mr Spock's, for out of this world sound quality.


Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?


** Like mommy said - get your hands of it.

Keep them off.



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Eiron" wrote in message


I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and
the effect on frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear,
compared to just placing it on the surface of a
head-sized sphere.

Dummy head recording is very old news.

It can only be reasonably be played on headphones.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in
plaster?

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:24:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and
the effect on frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear,
compared to just placing it on the surface of a
head-sized sphere.

Dummy head recording is very old news.

It can only be reasonably be played on headphones.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in
plaster?

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

But not much on dummy head recording using a modeled ear cavity.

If you want to go a little beyond a glib put-down, Google has
interesting stuff on "ear acoustics" such as:

"Theoretical and applied external ear acoustics
Authors: B B Ballachanda
The external ear (pinna and earcanal) plays a major role in
transforming acoustic signals from free field to the tympanic membrane
in humans. It acts as a filter to reduce low frequencies, a resonator
to enhance mid frequencies (2.0 to 7.0 kHz), and a direction-dependent
filter at high frequencies to augment spatial perception. The external
ear transfer function is altered by variations in the physical
dimension of the external ear either due to individual differences or
due to mechanical obstructions such as blockages, hearing aid
placement, perforation of the tympanic membrane, and use of insert
earphone. It is significant that any change in the characteristics of
the acoustic signal can produce considerable disparity in within- and
between-individual responses. The present paper examines published
studies on sound pressure transfer function provided by the external
ear in humans.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology"

The microphone you use will already be in a housing, designed to suit
the particular transducer used. Its "ear" if you like. So you'd be
putting an ear inside another ear. Maybe pointless? But this
shouldn't stop you trying, if the subject interests you.

Frequency response of the ear
 

The interesting thing is this. You do not want two ears do you, that is two
on each side. if you mount microphones inside ears, surely this is going to
be what will end up as far as you are concerned, unless you intend to plumb
the output into your brain.

The main thing about the ear is that it distorts very badly as its non
linear. This is why you hear things four times as loud as only twice as
loud. If your ears were linear, then you would not hear quiet things at all.
So dummy heads can be quite interesting, but the holy grail is not what you
may think it is.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Eiron" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

--
Eiron.

Frequency response of the ear
 

Eiron wrote:

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

If you model the ear's shape then you'll double the effect when listening
to the recording. Not required therefore I'd say.

Graham

Frequency response of the ear
 

Eeyore wrote:

Eiron wrote:

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

If you model the ear's shape then you'll double the effect when listening
to the recording. Not required therefore I'd say.

Surely not if you're listening on in-ear phones.
Whatever effect the external ear produces, you only want it to happen once.
So perhaps a dummy-head microphone with realistic ears would be better
for in-ear phones,
and one without ears would be better for full-size phones.

--
Eiron.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

--
Eiron.

Why get plaster in your hair? We're all inquisitive, but true innovation is
the rarest of beasts - just get your credit card out...

http://neumann.com/?lang=en&id=curre..._descript ion

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.


Years ago when dummy head recording was popular I attended a demonstration
where all sorts of techniques had been used - including a real skull. And
to be perfectly honest the standard two omnis spaced apart the same sort
of distance as ears and separated by a disc approximating to a cross
sectional of a head worked as well as anything.

If you try and reproduce what the ear does you'll double up on that effect
when listening - as the ear isn't linear.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Brian Gaffe"

The main thing about the ear is that it distorts very badly as its non
linear.

** Absolute ******** !!!

Human ears are extremely LINEAR !!!

Detecting 0.1% harmonic distortion ( 1 part in a *million* as a power
level ) on a sine wave would not be possible otherwise.


This is why you hear things four times as loud as only twice as loud.


** Rediculous false conclusion.

How loud sounds seem is function of the brain.



....... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Eiron"
Eeysore wrote:

If you model the ear's shape then you'll double the effect when listening
to the recording. Not required therefore I'd say.

Surely not if you're listening on in-ear phones.


** Nor the case with normal phones either.



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

The main thing about the ear is that it distorts very badly as its non
linear. This is why you hear things four times as loud as only twice as
loud. If your ears were linear, then you would not hear quiet things at
all.

I'm afraid the above may be confusing non linearity with sensitivity
variations.

The ear does have powerful response mechanisms that adjust the sensitivity
of the sensors to adapt to changes in sound level. However this *isn't* the
same thing as 'non linearity' in the way that term is usually applied, so
need not cause 'distortion' in the usual sense of the term. And the
processing the brain carries out takes these mechanisms into account.
Hearing isn't a simple mechanical process.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Frequency response of the ear
 

You cannot separate the brain from the ear so the whole argument is a bit
academic is it not? The reason you can hear differences is also due to the
brain as a matter of fact.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaffe"

The main thing about the ear is that it distorts very badly as its non
linear.

** Absolute ******** !!!

Human ears are extremely LINEAR !!!

Detecting 0.1% harmonic distortion ( 1 part in a *million* as a power
level ) on a sine wave would not be possible otherwise.


This is why you hear things four times as loud as only twice as loud.


** Rediculous false conclusion.

How loud sounds seem is function of the brain.



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

Using in ear phones is terribly inaccurate as the fit and acoustic coupling
can change with facial movements and is pretty uncomfortable as well.
The effect of the ear on over the ear phones can very much depend on the
characteristics of the cavity produced.

The big snag with binaural is that in a real sound field, your brain
commands small head movements and thus can hear the differences as the
position changes, with phones the brain cannot move the listening position
unless you have some very odd phones.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Eiron"
Eeysore wrote:

If you model the ear's shape then you'll double the effect when
listening
to the recording. Not required therefore I'd say.

Surely not if you're listening on in-ear phones.


** Nor the case with normal phones either.



..... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

ear ear I say...thud..
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Roger Mellie" wrote in message
...

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

--
Eiron.

Why get plaster in your hair? We're all inquisitive, but true innovation
is the rarest of beasts - just get your credit card out...

http://neumann.com/?lang=en&id=curre..._descript ion

Frequency response of the ear
 

Watch it I got shouted down when I pointed this out...
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Eiron wrote:
I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.


Years ago when dummy head recording was popular I attended a demonstration
where all sorts of techniques had been used - including a real skull. And
to be perfectly honest the standard two omnis spaced apart the same sort
of distance as ears and separated by a disc approximating to a cross
sectional of a head worked as well as anything.

If you try and reproduce what the ear does you'll double up on that effect
when listening - as the ear isn't linear.

--
*Virtual reality is its own reward*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Brian Gaff wrote:
The big snag with binaural is that in a real sound field, your brain
commands small head movements and thus can hear the differences as the
position changes, with phones the brain cannot move the listening
position unless you have some very odd phones.

It does, however, give the most convincing stereo for headphone listening.
Can be very impressive. Unlike listening to conventional stereo on
headphones.

--
*One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Brian Gaffe"

You cannot separate the brain from the ear ...


** More ridiculous BULL **** !!!

**** off - you know nothing, TROLLING ASS !!



...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

Phil Allison wrote:
"Brian Gaffe"


You cannot separate the brain from the ear ...



** More ridiculous BULL **** !!!

**** off - you know nothing, TROLLING ASS !!



..... Phil





Unlike separating brain from mouth and keyboard...

--
Nick

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:24:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and
the effect on frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear,
compared to just placing it on the surface of a
head-sized sphere.

Dummy head recording is very old news.

It can only be reasonably be played on headphones.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in
plaster?

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

But not much on dummy head recording using a modeled ear
cavity.

And that makes perfect sense, because the person listening to the recording
listens through a *real* ear cavity.

If you want to go a little beyond a glib put-down,

Seems like it is very much on-target.

Google has interesting stuff on "ear acoustics" such as:

Umm, you just told the guy to go google. Like I just did.

;-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Arny Krueger"

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


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




...... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

Google has interesting stuff on "ear acoustics" such as:

Umm, you just told the guy to go google. Like I just did.


You can help people through http://lmgtfy.com. It creates a URL you can
send them to help them learn to
help themselves.

Examples of uses:

"What do you mean by free market?"
http://tinyurl.com/dzyzdm

"Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis ? What's that?"
http://tinyurl.com/d7e4yq

"What do you mean, 'no'?"
http://tinyurl.com/cb2yed

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger"

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


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



I get 1,730

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/dummy.jpg


(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..!!! ;-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

Eiron wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Eiron wrote:

I was thinking about doing some dummy head recording and the effect on
frequency response
of using an electret capsule in a model of an ear, compared to just
placing it on the surface of a head-sized sphere.

Any thoughts before I start moulding body parts in plaster?

If you model the ear's shape then you'll double the effect when listening
to the recording. Not required therefore I'd say.

Surely not if you're listening on in-ear phones.

Yuk ! How could you ? All that ear wax ! Besides aren't they pretty crap ?

Graham

Frequency response of the ear
 

Nick Gorham wrote:

Phil Allison wrote:
"Brian Gaffe"

You cannot separate the brain from the ear ...

** More ridiculous BULL **** !!!

**** off - you know nothing, TROLLING ASS !!

..... Phil

Unlike separating brain from mouth and keyboard...

Excellent response ! ;~)

Grham

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Keith Git"
"Phil Allison"
"Arny Krueger"

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


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


I get 1,730


** Google is censoring about 20 hits from your delicate eyes ....


(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..!!! ;-)


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

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




....... Phil

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Phil Anus Hole" wrote


** Google is censoring about 20 hits from your delicate eyes ....


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..!!! ;-)


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

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


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

Frequency response of the ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Phil Anus Hole" wrote


** Google is censoring about 20 hits from your delicate eyes ....


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..!!! ;-)


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

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


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

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

I'm sure everyone will be fascinated by this.

--
*It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency response of the ear
 

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:02:36 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Years ago when dummy head recording was popular I attended a demonstration
where all sorts of techniques had been used - including a real skull. And
to be perfectly honest the standard two omnis spaced apart the same sort
of distance as ears and separated by a disc approximating to a cross
sectional of a head worked as well as anything.

Did you also hear the Sennheiser record with one side in English and
the other in German?

Interestingly, for me the effect of the German side was much less than
for the English side - probably because the spoken hints were no
longer present. (I did not speak any German at that time.) The power
of the mind to affect perception never ceases to amaze me. ;-)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Frequency response of the ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Phil Anus Hole" wrote


** Google is censoring about 20 hits from your delicate eyes ....


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..!!! ;-)


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

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


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

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

I'm sure everyone will be fascinated by this.


I wouldn't bank on it.....

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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

Frequency response of the ear
 

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

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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?

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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

Frequency response of the ear
 

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 :-)

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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

Frequency response of the ear
 

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.

Frequency response of the ear
 

"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

Frequency response of the ear
 

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? :-)