Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers (Read 8770 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Rich B on
I don't need saving
I can't be the judge of that, but most of the evidence suggests that you don't want to be saved. From audiophile-ism at least


I get irritated by suggestions from any side of a religious debate that you must be an idiot to be on the other side. People far smarter than you or me have taken positions on all sides. I might think they're wrong (almost by definition, it's very likely that I'll think some of them are wrong), but the evidence suggests that these people are not idiots.

Most of us can be irrational or un-self-critical at times, despite wishing to avoid both. Assuming someone is a genius when they agree with you, and an idiot when they do not, is easily done - but it risks falling into both traps.

Cheers,
David.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #26 –
I'm struggling to understand why religion has been dragged into a discussion about loudspeakers. We are all free to believe in what we wish (in my country, at least) and that includes the freedom to be an unbeliever but I don't see how theology belongs on a site that requires hard evidence to support claims. To quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #27 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Rich B on
I don't need saving
I can't be the judge of that, but most of the evidence suggests that you don't want to be saved. From audiophile-ism at least


I think I've taken steps to show that I'm not an irrational audiophool all the time, but there is much I have to learn so I'm not completely immune from audiophilism or it's charms. However I'm also not a golden-ear audiophool on some primrose path.   

Quote
I get irritated by suggestions from any side of a religious debate that you must be an idiot to be on the other side. People far smarter than you or me have taken positions on all sides. I might think they're wrong (almost by definition, it's very likely that I'll think some of them are wrong), but the evidence suggests that these people are not idiots.


Quoting bible passages in an audio forum annoys me. BTW, believing in something doesn't make one an idiot. Unless it's Solipsism, then you're an idiot. One can believe in whatever they like, so long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #28 –
Btw, labeling criticism of dogmatic beliefs as hate (or persecution in Fox News terms) does not invalidate that criticism. If anything, it makes your position look even weaker.


@2B: Sure, but smarter in what respect? Having a PhD does not mean you cannot be an idiot.

I wouldn't say someone is a genius just because of an agreement on some issue. What's important are the reasons why. On the dominant position you can find millions of tag-alongs that have never critically and skeptically examined their own beliefs.
"I hear it when I see it."

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #29 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
One place I would disagree is in describing you as a "very small cog in a very large machine" w.r.t. ABX. You are a very large cog, but just a cog, and your repeated claims to be more are offensive and wrong.



Since you have judged me and set the date of my hangling, why not recite the offensive claims that I've made about my relationship with ABX?

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: bobbaker on
One place I would disagree is in describing you as a "very small cog in a very large machine" w.r.t. ABX. You are a very large cog, but just a cog, and your repeated claims to be more are offensive and wrong.



Since you have judged me and set the date of my hangling, why not recite the offensive claims that I've made about my relationship with ABX?

Set the date of your hanging?? I don’t get the joke.

In my judgement, you are smart and have contributed a great deal to the world of audio, but you routinely overstate your knowledge and your contribution. ABX, as a test method, has a long history with many players (you know this already). There is no doubt that ABX testing took a big step forward with the contribution of the SMWTMS (you and others) in the 70’s, but you have often stepped on the others’ contributions when you say “I invented ABX” (Google it). That is offensive. Even the ABX box seems to have been a collaboration with Bern Muller, but you don’t acknowledge his part or the contribution of the rest of SMWTMS when you say "I".

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #31 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Assuming someone is a genius when they agree with you, and an idiot when they do not, is easily done - but it risks falling into both traps.


There is no spoon. There is no plan to purchase a 683 fro room X. "RichB" saw the cognoscenti weakness/hypocrisy/etc with impedance in prior "arguments", so 683 it is.

As far as the fairy tale stuff goes, he's really getting some extra mileage out of what would have been a run of the mill expedition. Fish are hungry I guess. 

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #32 –
Quote
There is no spoon. There is no plan to purchase a 683 fro room X. "RichB" saw the cognoscenti weakness/hypocrisy/etc with impedance in prior "arguments", so 683 it is.


Seems like you are fishing now.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #33 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
In my judgement, you are smart and have contributed a great deal to the world of audio, but you routinely overstate your knowledge and your contribution. ABX, as a test method, has a long history with many players (you know this already). There is no doubt that ABX testing took a big step forward with the contribution of the SMWTMS (you and others) in the 70’s, but you have often stepped on the others’ contributions when you say “I invented ABX” (Google it). That is offensive. Even the ABX box seems to have been a collaboration with Bern Muller, but you don’t acknowledge his part or the contribution of the rest of SMWTMS when you say "I".


The fact is that Bern saw the first ABX box the same time everybody else did - when I bought it to a SMWTMS meeting to be the guest of honor.  The first few appearances were not aweinspiring, but I figured out some enhancements to it and made them work.

Up until then only very general ideas, such as that it would implement some kind of a DBT based on some kind of same/different testing, had been discussed.

The first working ABX was built entirely by me from a design that I devised by myself using parts I purchased with my own money. It was the only ABX box that existed for at least a year or two. After that several people including Bern became interested in building their own.

Previous prototypes had been seen by various persons, and their contributions were comments of the nature "It's too hard to use" based on trying to use it. Nobody but me knew what was inside the box or how it did what it did, until much later.

So who invented what?  Does "Some kind of DBT based on some kind of same/different testing" constitute an invention in your book?  Do tell!

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #34 –
Quote
So who invented what? Does "Some kind of DBT based on some kind of same/different testing" constitute an invention in your book? Do tell!


The Wiki says :

Quote
History[edit]
In 1977 Arnold B. Krueger and Bern Muller, both members of the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society (SMWTMS), invented the ABX Double Blind Comparator System in order to settle a debate if differences between well constructed and level matched amplifiers are audible, Muller being pro and Krueger being against the possibility.[1]

The ABX Company designed, manufactured and sold the ABX Double Blind Comparator System, which made possible scientifically valid self run subjective comparisons of audio components. The information on these pages is historical. This web site documents the ABX Comparator System and lists the subjective test results obtained by the company and the Southeastern Michigan Woofer and Tweeter Marching Society, SMWTMS. I was one of six partners who formed and ran the ABX Company from 1980 to 1987.

May 7, 1977 SMWTMS did the first ever audio double blind subjective listening tests. An argument over the audibility of differences between amplifiers at a club meeting in November 1976 resulted in an agreement that a double blind test could settle the question. Just six months later, Arny Krueger gave a lecture on his design of a double blind comparator and the first three double blind tests were done. The results include the first three listed in the Power Amplifier Comparison Table in the data. Thus we credit Arny Krueger and his opponent in the argument, Bern Muller, as the inventors of the ABX Comparator. The agreement to create a company to manufacture comparators was informally made the following summer.


You claim to be the inventor but never give credit to your co-inventor, Bern Muller. Why is that?

Also you didn't invent ABX itself. Just a switch box, with co-inventor Bern Muller.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #35 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
So who invented what?  Does "Some kind of DBT based on some kind of same/different testing" constitute an invention in your book?  Do tell!

Knowing what to design and build is, of course, critical, but I don’t doubt you played a central role in the collaboration. It is unseemly though to take full credit for a group effort. Also, building the box does not make you the inventor of ABX. So other than laying out and soldering the thing, and buying parts, what was your role and what credit do you give to others? I know you are prone to blowing your own horn, so other than your countless forum and usenet posts and something like this, can you tell me how to find a source for the exact history.

EDIT: fixed link... but Rich cited a very similar text.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: greynol on
My mother says the same thing.

It grates on me because for most of the people who say it, it is a million miles from their true state of mind. It is just words.

What, the ritualistic (socially forced) chanting every weekday morning of the pledge of allegiance in K-12 schools across the USA?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If Rich and the rest of you haters hadn't gone all irrational and ballistic, this would have been over like a dozen posts ago.

If you hadn't dug yourself a hole and jumped right in, this would have been over just after one or two posts.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
And now because I quoted a certain book, I'm the current focal point of your hatred.

The only person who gave a shit about your quoting The Bible was Rich B; and his response was inappropriate.  ...but hatred?  You refuse to accept that you got schooled on the beliefs of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson.  That's what's going on here.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If I hadn't have (re) invented ABX as the great interactive tool that it became, you'd all probably all still be Golden Ears. ;-)

This is so stereotypical, it's comical.

[TOS #5] From: Thinking of upgrading speakers

Reply #37 –
Quote from: bobbaker on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
So who invented what?  Does "Some kind of DBT based on some kind of same/different testing" constitute an invention in your book?  Do tell!

Knowing what to design and build is, of course, critical, but I don’t doubt you played a central role in the collaboration. It is unseemly though to take full credit for a group effort


Do you know what the group effort was composed of?

Hint: It wasn't limited to inventing the ABX Comparator.

It really hasn't been discussed, but for example it included but was far from being limited to writing Dave Clark's AES convention paper and suquel JAES article.  Where did I take credit for doing any of that?

Quote
Also, building the box does not make you the inventor of ABX. So other than laying out and soldering the thing, and buying parts, what was your role and what credit do you give to others?


When I started, we had a wired, remote controlled speaker-level relay box designed and built by Floyd James for his power amp business that he had loaned to me. However I had previously built several such things for local audio stores.

I designed from scratch and debugged the entire circuitry of the first ABX box - how it was programmed with and stored the random sequence of Xs, how they were called out of memory and used to control the speaker-level relays, the remote control panel, the timing of the switch-overs which were non-trivial and novel, the power supply, the displays, etc.  There was no circuitry that was in it that I didn't design from scratch as much as things like 28 volt power supplies are designed from scratch.

Quote
I know you are prone to blowing your own horn,


I know that you are overwhelmed by envy, have never done anything of consequence in your profession,  and have already tried and convicted me in your mind of being a thief of other people's intellectual property.