[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 3, 7:15*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Sep 2, 5:26 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Aug 31, 8:46 am, Dick Pierce
wrote:
Does George Tice's clock improve the "quality of
experience" because it really does align the electrons?
And because it allegedly does, he deserve the
outrageous price he charges? Is that what contributes
to the "quality of the experience?" And what,
precisely, happens to that "quality of experience"
when it's revealed that, in fact, his claim is
completely vacuous? Is it now all about the price
being the reason for the "quality of experience,"
because when the emperor is found to be naked, we find
that Tice's clock is no different from an ordinary
Radio Shack clock, indeed it IS an ordinary Radio
Shack clock? What happens to the "quality of
experience? when
we see the emperor in the altogether?
That is a testable question. Do bias effects continue to
affect one's perception even after one fails to hear
differences under bias controlled conditions?
Depends on the nature of the bias.
How so?

Due to the vague nature of the question, its hard to answer.

You are the one who made the claim. I only asked you to explain it.
Does that mean your own claim is too vague for you to explain?


*Do you have some real meaningful information on
the subject?

I need a relevant, meaningful question to answer.

I asked you if you have any meaningful information on bias effects
that continue to be in play even after the bias has been exposed by
bias controlled tests. You had a meraningful question. I'm going to
guess that you simply have nothing to offer ont he subject. Fair
enough. I'll run it by JJ. I'm sure he knows a good deal about that
sort of thing.


*Or should we just ask JJ?

I think JJ swore off of Usenet. I'm in touch with him regularly, but he's
pretty busy these days.

he's great about answering these kinds of questions.



My understanding is that often yes, people continue to
perceive improvements that are purely bias related
perceptions.

Often seems to be a meaningless hedge word here.
No. It is vague. I don't have hard numbers. but it is not
meaningless.

There you go.

OK ww agree. Vague because I don't have hard numbers but not
meaningless.



That would be a continued improvement in the
quality of experience.
The obvious indicator of bias here being that there is
this massive experience of audiophiles, where almost any
change is perceived as an improvement.
That's news to me.

It's up to you to inform yourself.

Do tell us your source for factual information about the "mass
experience of audiophiles." I think you are just making it up.



Sure this isn't just your own bias talking here?

Yes.


I think you are mistaken as so many are when their biases are in play.
No big deal though.



Not that it matters.

Begging the question, why bother to answer your posts?


you gotta ask yourself that question in private Arny. No one is
forcing you to respond.


Improved quality of
experience is improved quality of experience regardless
of the underlying mechanisms.

Ah yes, the solipsist's defense - "It's better because I say it is".


Yep. either one takes such a position in audio as a hobbyist or one
has to form a posse to feel better about their own perceptions. I just
don't need that crutch. When I sit and listen to music the only one
who needs to be pleased is me.


Whether or not this is a
common or rare phenomenon matters not.

Sure it does.

How so?



If you actually work with sound, you find that most
changes don't actually improve things. In some cases
there are no changes that are possible at all that will
improve things.
Now *that* is so vague as to be meaningless.

Again, begging the question, why bother to answer your posts?

That is a question for you to answer for yourself Arny.


And the same is true of badly designed CD players with
'blue dithering lasers" and magic wooden pucks and
bricks and CD pens and grotesquely overpriced
amplifiers from the far east, some of whom are in
violation of the law because they can't even meet
their own published specifications? How does the
obscene pursuit of insane profits enhance "quality of
experience" for anyone else besides the merchant and
manufacturer?
How do you figure those amplifiers from the far east are
"overpriced?"
Dollars per watt of clean power.
What does that have to do with the real world cost of
parts, labor, shipping and duties?

Asked and answered, just below.

Not really. but i can answer it. It has nothing to do with real world
costs.



Fair pricing is to a
large degree a reflection of factors such as actual costs
of making the product.

In most of the real world, its all about costs and benefits. Benefits
matter. Costs are usually subordinate to benefits.

In audio it's about costs and percieved benefits. Clearly some people
percieve a benefit that is worth the cost. Otherwise we would be
talking about these products because they wouldn't exist.



If you disagree I suggest you stay
out of any sort of business that involves making and
selling something.

I've personally been in the business of making and selling something for
over 20 years. I can't sell less benefits for more money.

Are you selling things for less than they cost you to make?



Often the ratio is near-infinite because
these amps really don't produce any power that would be
considered to be clean by modern standards.
Clean power? I thought we were talking about amplifiers
not powerline conditioners.

?????????????/

Never heard of powerline conditions used to clean the power?



I've you actually done the math? Have you
considered the costs of materials and costs of
construction along with the costs of shipping and
duties?
Just because someone chooses to build and sell
amplifiers the least economical possible way, doesn't
mean that their costs relate to value received.
*Value* is largely subjective.

To a point.

No. What makes a Picasso worth millions? It is the subjective
evaluation of value.



*But it is hard to call any
product grotesquely overpriced if the price is a fair
reflection of the costs that go into it.

No, it's very easy. The phrase "solid gold toilet brush" comes to mind. Not
much of a market for them.

But there seems to be a market for very expensive SETs. But that is
neither here nor there. If one were to make a solid gold toilet brush
one would have to charge according to the cost of materials. So an
expensive solid gold toilet brush would not actually be "grotesquely
overpriced" even if it is several orders of magnitude more expensive
than a common plastic toilet brush.



One may have the
personal opinion that it is not a good *value* but that
is quite different than calling something grotesquely
overpriced.

I think it may be fair to note that some high end audio gear is like a
"solid gold toilet brush"


Except there is a market for the gear.




Which amps are you saying are grotesquely overpriced and
which ones are in violation of the law?

The ones that aren't rated per FTC rules. The ones that
lack UL approvals
Which ones would that be. I'm looking for citations of
actual real world product here.

Good luck on doing your own research. First, you might want to familiarize
yourself as to what the FTC rules for consumer power amplifiers are


IOW you got nothing. Thought so.