Posted by NRen2k5 on 12/02/07 13:03

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jack" <jack@beanstalk.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns99F8DEE5D5EE6jack@216.168.3.44
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
>> news:sMqdnY61IZu4ls3anZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> "Jack" <jack@beanstalk.net> wrote in message
>>> news:13kv43li2b63l90@corp.supernews.com
>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
>>>> news:NaidneXYer06NNPanZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Where are the results of your DBTs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody can write poetry. Real men can hear differences in
>>>>> blind tests, or admit they can't.
>>>> Real men? If you listen to the WMA file you'll hear that no
>>>> blind tests are needed in this case.
>>> Jack, real men can read and obviously you can't. I posted the
>>> results of my blind tests with Steven's files on 11/28. That was
>>> two days ago. Where are yours?
>>>
>>> All I did is transform Stephen's coded files back into .wav files
>>> with standard software and compare those .wav files adn the
>>> original .wav file with some well-known free software that is
>>> pointed to by links at www.pcabx.com .
>>>
>>> BTW, blind tests comparing .wav files to coded files are
>>> slam-dunk easy. Please see www.pcabx.com and the Hydrogen Audio
>>> forums for more information.
>> It looks like you're trying to market something that's not
>> pertinent to this example.
>
> How not pertinent?
>
>> Pomposity isn't much of a sales technique, either.
>
> I'm not selling a thing, just trying to shake you out of your
> intellectual slumber.
>
>>>> I already described in detail what the artifacts are.
>
>>> No Jack, you just posted some poetry.
>
>> Is your agenda to argue for the sake of argument?
>
> If you haven't noticed Jack, you're the only person reporting audible
> problems here, as far as I can see.
>
>> Listen to the files already.
>
> I listened to Steven's files already, Jack. Talk about being full of
> yourself!
>
>> Here they are, properly named now.
>
>> http://www.badongo.com/file/5372691 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
>> WAV)
>
> Broken link.
>
>> http://www.badongo.com/file/5372700 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
>> WMA)
>
> Broken link
>
>> http://www.badongo.com/file/5372709 (Down By The River 3:30-4:00
>> MP3)
>
> Broken link
>
>> When something sounds that much off, ABX or ABC or ABD is not
>> needed.
>
> All the golden ears with their heads in the ground say exactly that.
> Magic wires, green pens, magic amplifiers, they say it for the whole
> enchelada.
>
>> You started off inexplicably assuming I'm opposed to blind testing,
>>
>
> No, that only became clear when you started going off like this.
>
>> when I hadn't made a single comment on it.
>
> The ignorance and hostility is oozing out of your post, Jack.
>
>> I'm all for blind testing if there are subtle differences, but
>> that's not the case here. Are you of the mind that the whole world
>> is against ABX by default?
>
> The whole world against ABX? LOL!
>
> Jack, you're *special*.
>
>> "Anti-ABX conspiracy rocks the metro area!"
>
> Only in your mind, Jack. ABX has been around for almost 30 years,
> and is generally recognized as being certain kind of listening test
> that is good for situations like this. I don't have to sell squat. I
> simply point people to some free, helpful information. Other
> similarly well-regarded testing methods that relate include ABC/hr
>
>>> But of course Jack you're always right and people like Steven and
>>> I are always wrong, and the fact that all of this technology was
>>> developed with blind tests means nothing to you...
>
>> You're tilting at windmills. Listen to the dadburned files!
>
> Been there, done that. Thanks for calling me a fool and a liar by
> implication.
>
>> I just closed my eyes and heard the difference even better. The MP3
>> is significantly cleaner than the WMA, which isn't usually the case
>> with those formats at 128 kbps.
>
> Stop stonewalling, Jack.

Wow, the lengths to which some people will go to avoid such simple tests
when the thing you want to test is something they're sooo certain of....

[Back to original message]