Scott wrote:
On May 11, 6:41 am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
I said in my last post that I would only respond to any actual science
you brough to the conversation. I have decided to let the rest of your
new comments stand on their own to demonstrate the utter lack of audio
content not to mention the utter failure to bring any actual science
to the conversation about the scientific support for the belief in
amplifier transparency. All the obfusecation, ad hominem and other
logical fallacies speak for themselves so I will let them stand on
their own sans comment. I leave them in so as to not be accused of
snipping or ignoring them.
You arbitrarily cut large part of my comments while leaving other part but
stripped context. I wonder how moderators let it by, since this is obvious and
explicit attempt at misrepresentation. Hence I hope this (last addressed to you)
reply, mainly pointing that misrepresentation, will be accepted as well.
I am only responding because you did
actually cite one reference so I will respond to that.
Short memory, Scott?
Who wrote: "Nice stack of irrelevant material only some of which would be
considered peer reviewed science."?
Except it did 
This one seemed to be obvious to anyone...
Fletcher, H. and Munson, W.A. Loudness, its definition, measurement and
calculation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 5, 82-108 (1933)
Alas an actual citation of some real science. OK now lets take this
papaer and it's contents and now show a corolation to amplifier
transparency. Please show how the contents of this research supports
the belief in amplifier transparency. Clearly it does not in any way
directly say anything on the subject of amplifier transparency. So you
still need to show how this supports that belief.
Mechanism of that connection has been discussed and explained ad nauseum in this
very thread. That you don't want to get it is not my problem.
[...arbitrarily selection of comments of mine, deprived of any context --
snipped...]
There you have it. Nothing new. No citations of actual scientific
literature that establishes the thresholds of human hearing. No new
peer reviewed published papers with listening tests of amplifiers. No
varifiable measurments of actual amplifiers driving a real world
speaker load. Nothing. Oh we do have an acknowledgment that SETs may
actually not be transparent.
Those comments of mine you arbitrarily filtered and stripped off context were
exactly about Carver challenge. So this is plain and deliberate attempt at
obfuscation and twisting context to suit you.
[...]
To summarise...
You falsely claimed (in parts which you snipped) there were no verifiable data
posted (while you replied to the very messages containing those data with proper
attribution of sources). You also misrepresented others opionions, blatantly
snipped context attemtpint to change their meaning. Thus further discussion with
you makes no sense.
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)
[ This part of the thread is closed. -- dsr ]