In Reply to: I predicted 20 posts of pure obfuscation from you on this thread posted by Analog Scott on July 24, 2010 at 17:03:52:
You know, the ones mentioned in the OP and which you later said exceeded known audible thresholds shown on the ABX site? The information I asked you for?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/58746.html
Since you did not know who wrote the article, nor the title, and got the date wrong, that made it somewhat more difficult for me to find it. Once I did find it, it was clear that you did not have the article in front of you since you had the date wrong, and also did not have the contents right. Since you did not know who wrote the article or what the title was, it is no wonder you have never seen it criticized, so your attempted meta-analysis in your OP was so much hooey.
If you want a link the 1987 article in SR by Clark and Masters, I have found one and it is below. Read away to your heart's content. As I surmised, the program material was not as good for the purpose as it might have been--even Stereophile later discovered thick stuff like choral music made for a more sensitive test. I am surprised they did not use pink noise, too.
Oh, BTW, this means I have actually found an objectivist who relied too much on a superseded test, but so far, you have not, though you maintained you knew this. But really, you and JA should get over an old test done 23 years ago.
I cited a later article in SR by E. Brad Meyer in which he showed an audible differences between a tube amp and a SS amp driving two different speakers, though with one of the speakers, the difference was only shown to be audible on pink noise. You and JA really should get over that old superseded test.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Have you found those FR differences you mentioned that exceed known audible thresholds yet? - Pat D 18:15:23 07/24/10 (29)
- I am truly very sorry if you believe - E-Stat 18:33:00 07/26/10 (28)
- Irrelevant remarks. - Pat D 19:20:11 07/26/10 (27)
- Absolutely - E-Stat 05:59:31 07/27/10 (26)
- RE: Absolutely - Pat D 09:03:08 07/27/10 (25)
- Simple - E-Stat 09:28:28 07/27/10 (24)
- You are totally confused. - Pat D 20:04:52 07/28/10 (23)
- Apparently, you are unaware of how dated your source is - E-Stat 07:30:13 07/29/10 (22)
- It's not my source but one Analog Scott was using to make some point or other. - Pat D 12:18:16 07/29/10 (21)
- I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Analog Scott 07:30:08 07/30/10 (16)
- RE: I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Pat D 18:39:14 07/31/10 (15)
- Gotta hand it to ya Pat. you never have been one to let facts get in your way - Analog Scott 19:54:14 07/31/10 (14)
- When you have to hurl personal accusations to prove your point, youve already lost the argument. - Pat D 20:29:55 08/03/10 (13)
- Let me know when that happens. - Analog Scott 17:15:39 08/04/10 (11)
- Well, you may have points, but no real arguments for them. - Pat D 17:37:08 08/05/10 (10)
- You have no arguments that I have no argument - Analog Scott 13:42:52 08/06/10 (9)
- I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 08:31:19 08/08/10 (8)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 17:48:03 08/08/10 (4)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 06:27:37 08/09/10 (3)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 02:43:37 08/11/10 (2)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 05:39:56 08/11/10 (1)
- Now I have the rightmost post in "classic view". nt - kurt s 07:19:31 08/12/10 (0)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Tony Lauck 09:51:28 08/08/10 (2)
- I got to the part about... - kerr 06:28:49 08/09/10 (1)
- RE: I got to the part about... - Tony Lauck 10:48:47 08/09/10 (0)
- I missed the connection between the title of your post and the content. nt - Tony Lauck 09:27:39 08/04/10 (0)
- Congratulations - E-Stat 12:51:44 07/29/10 (3)
- "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 17:59:46 07/29/10 (2)
- RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - Tony Lauck 18:55:49 07/29/10 (1)
- RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 00:40:31 07/30/10 (0)