Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.
I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.
The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.
There has to be something to reinforce, no?
You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.
It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.
"We"? What do you mean, "we"?
*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.
What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'. I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.
(Moderator: how does this post get through?)
[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]
You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.
False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
you know it.
Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.
You're beginning to bore me.
It's pretty hard to
find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
players.
Mark Levinson?
Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
differences among transports with that dog!
I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
quite beautiful.
So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.
So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?
Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................
Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.
Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.
They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
by anyone.
But all this took time.
Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?
I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.
Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.
I don't remember you...sitting next to me.
I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.
You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.
Oh, is that so?