Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:
wrote in message .net... Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the discussions here that seem to go on forever: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been participating in these endless discussions over the years. I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share with the readers: " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions." "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience... ... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists." Contrasting science and literatu " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision." Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific" TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between audio components? But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology? I wonder. Ludovic Mirabel Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound. I 'wonder' too. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Nousaine) wrote in message news:S7R6b.385366$o%2.173822@sccrnsc02...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote: ( see below for previous discussion) Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific" TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between audio components? Nousaine: But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology? I wonder. Ludovic Mirabel Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound. I 'wonder' too. Dear Mr. Nousaine. I have no idea what "claims". you're referring to and how exactly you want them "confirmed". I have my likes and dislikes in wires,amps, photographic techniques, reproductions of paintings, clarinets, pianos, wines and cheeses. I can try to convey my likes more or less convincingly. I do not expect others to share them- in fact I'm certain that 99% of humanity simply couldn't care less and - a secret- neither do I. If you know of anyone saying that he has a "scientific" provable claim on these matters, I'm with you, he has to prove it. And so do you. I do not believe that any way to *confirm* or to negate my preferences exists. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that in this one and only area of preferences, opinions, tastes , likes and dislikes people search for *confirmation*. Sighted bias is bad- no one has a patented , researched *confirmed* cure for it equally usable by everyone. Like with photographic techniques and painting reproductions so with audio. You and I like it or not, we are on our own with oour tastes and our brains such as they are. Ludovic Mirabel wrote in message .net... Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the discussions here that seem to go on forever: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been participating in these endless discussions over the years. I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share with the readers: " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions." "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience... ... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists." Contrasting science and literatu " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision." wrote in message .net... Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the discussions here that seem to go on forever: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been participating in these endless discussions over the years. I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share with the readers: " Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts. Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and conclusions." "...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience... ... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise -- yet think of themselves as "scientists." Contrasting science and literatu " Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication verification, no demand for accuracy and precision." Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific" TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between audio components? But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology? I wonder. Ludovic Mirabel Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound. I 'wonder' too. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tom said
But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S888Wheel wrote:
Tom said But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise. Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? -- -S. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven said
Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my opinion. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Tom said But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? I said They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise. Tom said OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as relevant as the lack of verification of same. No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my opinion. Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature) psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols. DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades. In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with 1) claiming that's been a mistake 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio is 'special' Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming. -- -S. |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven said
Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? I said I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my opinion. Steven said Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature) psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols. DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades. I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research. Steven said In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with 1) claiming that's been a mistake 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio is 'special' I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through. That was the point. Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position suported by science as science is described in the original article about science vs. psuedoscience. At home you may or may not do good careful work. If it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it published. If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when used for playback. Steven said Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming. Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point to half of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound different is evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO. |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54... Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific" TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between audio components? Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology? When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C), magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc. However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one of the areas of endless debate here. Let me first note that in 3 years I have seen green felt pens, magnetic cones, Shaktis whatever mentioned frequently on RAHE. Never, but never by anyone SUPPORTING it. Always but always by someone fighting its imaginary supporters- and brilliantly winning the debate (reference Don Quijote vs. windmills) I listened to green-inked cds. and heard no difference . I listened to silver, triple-platted interconnects with teflon insulation and heard clear difference from zipcord , easily reinforced to ME by the left-right with random changes protocol. This does not mean that others will hear it too. I'm not in a position to say that the green pen and magnetic puck people are deluded. There is no way of checking what their brains perceive. Many people like wines that I think are awful. Certainly not by subjecting them to a DBT. A DBT for comparable AUDIO COMPONENT comparison, applicable to everyone with normal hearing, is NOT a researched, peer reviewed technique- Mr Nousaine, Mr. Sullivan please note. (Some hope!) And Mr Wheel, please note: no, it is not a "valid claim". It is an extraordinary claim due for experimental validation. Long overdue in fact- some 30 years. The answer , Mr. Nousaine to your asking for "proof" of sighted perception is that by this time you should have grasped that individual perceptions about differences between comparable audio components are neither provable or diprovable. They are OPINIONS. I can not recall anyone "claiming" to have such "proofs". But they abound in your postings. If anyone were silly enough to say it he has an exact counterpart in the DBT "I have a foolproof disproof" mythmakers. I'll repeat: come up with references to peer-reviewed research about comparing comparable components by ABX and we'll talk again. Ludovic Mirabel |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? I said I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my opinion. Steven said Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature) psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols. DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades. I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research. Steven said In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with 1) claiming that's been a mistake 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio is 'special' I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through. That was the point. But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly and operating within their deesigned limits. Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel. It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers* who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter. And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still credible, results from work using controlled comparison protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark and Greenhill. Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position suported by science as science is described in the original article about science vs. psuedoscience. At home you may or may not do good careful work. If it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it published. What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences? If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results, resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols *do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed or not. I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when used for playback. Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review. "Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that the only scientific claims are those which have been published in scientific journals. Scientific claims are those made from scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who *understands* scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess who's methods are more *scientific*? Steven said Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming. Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either science has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either do not reveal their real charms under DBT. You have outlined yet a a third position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what we know about the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing, *as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation conditions. -- -S. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven said
Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference? I said I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my opinion. Steven said Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature) psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols. DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades. I said I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research. Steven said In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with 1) claiming that's been a mistake 2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio is 'special' I said I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through. That was the point. Steven said But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly and operating within their deesigned limits. I have seen this said before. I haven't seen it demonstrated. maybe you could do this? Cite the specific known properties of human hearing and the specific known properties of amplifiers and cables and show that it suggests all the known distortions of amps and cables are inaudible in any playback system. That is probably a lot to ask but if you believe this I would think you could do this or point to some literature demonstrating this. Steven said Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel. I have heard this argument before as well. It strikes me as an unfounded assertion until someone can cite a peer review group rejecting such test based on their excessive obviousness. i have asked for any citations of this before with no citations being offered. Steven said It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers* who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter. They should run such tests if they choose to. No one is obligated to do so. If they want the tests to be scientifically valid then they should publish them in a peer reviewed scientific journal. the scientific community doesn't make any exceptions for any other claims to my knowledge. I can't see why anything in audio should be exempt from the protocols of the scientific community. If one wants to say something is supported by science it must actually be supported by science. I don't think that is such a radical position. Steven said And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still credible, results from work using controlled comparison protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark and Greenhill. Credibility is often quite subjective. Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain anecdotal. I said Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position suported by science as science is described in the original article about science vs. psuedoscience. At home you may or may not do good careful work. If it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it published. Steven said What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences? I would suspect that the AESJ would publish good tests on the subject. They have published articles advocating such tests. I think in light of that fact it would be far fetched to think they would publish such articles and reject the very tests advocated in such articles. I said If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. Steven said That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results, resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols *do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed or not. Maybe they do maybe they don't. It is not hard to do bad DBTs or even fraudulant ones. That is part of what peer review is all about, To weed out the garbage. To assume that just because someone claims to have done DBTs doesn't make the claimed tests valid. There is a lot more to good testing than just making them double blind. Also no one I know of is saying that peer review is the arbitrator of truth only that it is the protocol of science as a dicipline. No doubt some things that go through peer review and get published turn out to be bogus and somethings that are never reviewed are actually right on the money. But that wasn't the issue. the issue was tests of the audibility of amps and cables that have undergone peer review. It seems none have. In such case the reasonable conclusion is one cannot make any claims of scientific validity one way or another unless you can successfully corolate all the scientifically accepted data on human hearing to all the scientifically accepted data on amplifier performance in playback and demonstrate that there should be no audible differences in amps with any real world speaker. You would have to show that every possible distortion of an amplifier has been propperly testsed for audibility in any real world application of playback. Sounds like a lot of work to me. I said I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when used for playback. Steven said Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review. I don't see how holding allegedly "scientifically supported" claims in audio to the same standards of peer review that the scientific world holds all other allegedly scientifically supported claims becomes a peer review "fetish." Steven said "Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that the only scientific claims are those which have been published in scientific journals. It certainly implies it. Steven said Scientific claims are those made from scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who *understands* scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess who's methods are more *scientific Any group of people can get together and call something scientific. The creationists have done this. I have seen an extremely unscientific DBTs published in an audio journal. It remains anecdotal until published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Steven said Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming. I said Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Steven said No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either science has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either do not reveal their real charms under DBT. You are right. i missunderstood the reference. I don't agree with that either or scenario. All one has to do is show a classic case of really bad DBTs or even a fraudulant one to show that it isn't an either or propostion. Steven said You have outlined yet a a third position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what we know about the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing, *as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation conditions. I think you are exagerating the merits of the existing anecdotal evidence. I think the results of all the anecdotal DBTs are not so clear cut as you make them out to be. |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Tom said But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise? I said They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound ABX or otherwise. Tom said OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as relevant as the lack of verification of same. I said No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty. Stewert said Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable sound' and came up empty. Could you cite the specific peer reviewed published tests? I would be interested in reading them. Stewert said There are many applications which are *much* more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio', we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording. -- I don't see how this point supports the position that all cables sound the same. I can identify a person by the sound of their voice over the phone. I can even tell my twin brothers apart on the phone. My phone is not a high fidelity player. Just because submarines can be heard and identified over long distances using ordinary cable doesn't in and of itself prove that the cable is transparent just as my ability to tell my twin brothers apart over the phone doesn't prove the phone is transparent. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much* more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio', we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper in teflon insulation. One system used silver plated steel alloy for the desired impedance and toughness. I am not saying that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors. But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper is used because it is good enough. Dennis |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I said
Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point to half of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound different is evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO. Tom said This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed evidence that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same weight. No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se. Further more, many scientific investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and published so the analogy is entirely flawed. Tom said The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers didn't see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares? Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on such things? There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal. By the way, one would not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new species or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is ridiculous to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an entirely different proccess. Tom said What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary claim and the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen for the lackof evidence supporting the claim. There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists. Further more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is nothing more than that as far as I can see. Tom said This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary evidence but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of interest) argument is such. The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented. There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered scientifically valid. And you have misrepresented my position. I have never claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and correctly pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal. Tom said IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq response, overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a proponent to have conducted a replicable and reviewed experiment showing such to be true. If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all the anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon themsleves to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication in a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest. Without it your claim lacks scientific support. |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
snip
Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain anecdotal. Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2 : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so) but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the protocol methodology used. For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published, much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability, sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation). So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as "anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such determination. snip Keith Hughes |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stewert said
There are many applications which are *much* more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio', we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording. Ludovic said I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with? I don't think this at all fair to Stewert who has described his DBTs of amplifiers in detail. While I don't think his point per se proves that cables are transparent I don't think it warrents an unfair attack on the work he did in selecting his amplifiers. |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much* more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio', we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording. Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper in teflon insulation. What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed, I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made up to a usefully high resistance. One system used silver plated steel alloy for the desired impedance and toughness. That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies. I am not saying that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors. But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper is used because it is good enough. What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I said
Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain anecdotal. Keith said Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2 : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so) but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the protocol methodology used. For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published, much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability, sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation). So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as "anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such determination. snip Keith Hughes This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid. The fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests. He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal evidence. |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much* more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio', we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e 'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording. Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper in teflon insulation. What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed, I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made up to a usefully high resistance. One system used silver plated steel alloy for the desired impedance and toughness. That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies. I am not saying that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors. But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper is used because it is good enough. What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That makes lots of sense Stewart. It is just plain old copper. Other than of course it being silver plated. So other than not being just plain copper it is of course plain copper. All you need is plain copper of course unless you need something else like silver plating. Yep, makes real good sense. Dennis |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S888Wheel wrote:
I said Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain anecdotal. Keith said Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2 : based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so) but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the protocol methodology used. For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published, much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability, sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation). So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as "anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such determination. snip Keith Hughes This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid. And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is an old enough science to have its own textbooks. Therein you will find the 'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and perception. Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the 60's. Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too. Yet you keep askign for citations. So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've been directed to them before. The fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests. He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal evidence. And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened? One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect. -- -S. |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote: Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic & marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at 328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE coated cables justify this reason alone? I suspect part of the cost is "what the market will bear". The PFTE almost certainly adds some cost during manufacture due to the higher temperatures needed to apply/extrude it. Compliance to a formal mil-spec rating (e.g. MIL-W-16878-E for much of the wire of this sort I've bought) certainly adds cost (probably paperwork, tracking, testing, and so forth). I believe I've read that this wire is normally silverplated because the high temperatures used in applying the PFTE would otherwise cause the surface of the copper to oxidize, making the wire difficult to solder and (I suppose) perhaps compromising the quality of crimped connections to the wire. Normal tinning processes can't be used due to the high temperatures. I agree with you that thermal stability is probably the biggest advantage to using this sort of wire. Darned embarrassing if your multimillion-dollar jet fighter, MX missile, etc. fails in flight because the PVC insulation on a cheap wire melts through and the whole system shorts out. I've come to like using this wire for homebrew projects, because I don't have to worry about burning through it if I happen to touch it with my soldering iron while working on a nearby part. Also, the insulation doesn't "shrink back" away from the solder junction. It's expensive if ordered new from (e.g.) Alpha or Belden or etc., but is commonly available in surplus here in the Silicon Valley. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#31
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:13:32 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic & marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at 328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE coated cables justify this reason alone? Yes. I worked in the defence industry for about twenty years, and one of the main reasons for the use of PTFE in cable insulation is not that it withstands high temperatures (although this is a useful property), but that if one wire in a harness burns out or breaks, it can readily be replaced by pulling through another wire. No other insulation material will allow this, although several others have even higher thermal ratings. The other main reason for the use of PTFE is that, for a given voltage and current rating, PTFE gives the smallest overall wire diameter, leading to more compact cable harnesses. In complex military equipment which is required to fit into small spaces in fighting vehicles, this combination of properties easily justifies the small additional cost. It also strips very cleanly for crimping with minimal 'pullback', which is nice. BTW, I generally refer to it as 'Teflon' because that's the best-known name for PTFE, and many of our American cousins might not recognise the generic term. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#32
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#33
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ref: Dividing lines between science and pseudo-science...
mrclem.. As one reads about new breakthroughs in Science or any other discipline or human endeavor, one begins to see that when a scientist stumbles into newer and more logical theory he becomes the point of ridicule by many of his fellow Scientist. There is a tendency to not accept the new concept..why?...it is outside of the "lines" of previous and current thinking. A particularly devastating aspect of the "hard-line Objectivist" mentality. New concepts and ideas tend to be ridiculed by this ultra-conservative mindset. However, in this day and age with new concepts and breakthroughs there is a "ray" of hope that new principles and concepts are being accepted with less ridicule. (This is particularly true in the world of Astronomy.) Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a certain element within his realm of work. Granted he did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open the mind to greater horizons. The point of all this is to be very leary of accusing a new principle of having elements of quackery or pseudo-science when indeed it is outside the lines of currently accepted thinking. So many great breakthroughs have had to suffer through this element of ridicule...always, coming from that element in our society that has everything clearly defined within a set of lines that define the "real" world to them. Never accepting that most knowledge is still outside the "lines" or borders of the known! It is almost as if we have a mindset within our midst that is very, very fearful that new breakthroughs will somehow shatter the current thinking that they have based their very being on! To them,it is a fearful thing that should be "nipped in the bud"..dangerous, these new concepts and ideas. Put them down..less worry..let the Universe stay as I conceive it to be. Perhaps, a weakness of our very being!! Certain Institutions in the past have thrived on this mentality. Square one: we've got to continue moving those mental lines or barriers forever outward...develope a willingness to maintain an open mind...always, keep an open mind! The volume of new knowledge and concepts to be discovered makes the known knowledge a miniscule drop in the bucket. Enough, I meander on...this horse has been beat to death in the past!! Leonard.. __________________________________________________ _______________________ On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:16:38 +0000, mrclem wrote: Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the discussions here that seem to go on forever: http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been participating in these endless discussions over the years. |
#34
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I said
Do you really think every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests. He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal evidence. Tom said Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.) And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table? Not at the moment. Tom said But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard defending amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence? This is a straw man. I haven't been arguing amp sound, I have been arguing scientific validity of any opinions either way when it comes to amp sound. Yes, i think that amps that I have compared in my home on my system have sounded different. I have made no claims that those opinions are supported by science. Tom said In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from an internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called cognitive dissonance. You are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion claiming valid scientific support of one's beliefs in the absence of scientifically valid data is a misrepresentation of legitimate science. |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven said
And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is an old enough science to have its own textbooks. I have never said otherwise about psychoacoustics. Steven said Therein you will find the 'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and perception. I know that. Steven said Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the 60's. Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too. That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must be tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions would need to be included in the scope of things.) Steven said Yet you keep askign for citations. So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've been directed to them before. What is keeping those who believe that the proof of inaudibility is proven in such texts from making the citations I ask for? This sounds like a classic case of "I say it's so and the science agrees with me and you have to go prove it for me." Those who make the assertions must do the work of proving those assertions. I said The fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests. He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal evidence. Steven said And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened? Which just shows that there is more to a test being valid then it simply being double blind. So how is quality control guaged? It is my understanding that the peer review proccess is the litmus test for scientific acceptability. All tests that are not peer reviewed are anecdotal. So I have been told by my friends who happen to be scientists or graduate students at Cal Tech. Are they wrong? Steven said One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect. I did find one of his tests painfully flawed, but even then I did not reject the data. I just don't think it proves a global scientific fact about audio. |
#36
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Leonard wrote:
Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a certain element within his realm of work. Granted he did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open the mind to greater horizons. Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of? If it's so certain, that should be an easy job. Keep in mind that Einstein employed a full time professional logician working in his office when he was at Princeton working on the Unified Field Theory. Could it be that such rigor has something to do with that theory not yet being shown to be really workable? Compare that to high end audio where perverse delight is taken in denying even the most simple of logic. |
#37
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#38
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#39
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Leonard wrote: Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a certain element within his realm of work. Granted he did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open the mind to greater horizons. jjnunes said Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of? If it's so certain, that should be an easy job. That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most physicists. |
#40
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
S888Wheel wrote:
Leonard wrote: Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a certain element within his realm of work. Granted he did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open the mind to greater horizons. jjnunes said Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of? If it's so certain, that should be an easy job. That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most physicists. I've read that Planck jumped on board right away, the others took longer. But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments. It's the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories, (Raedecker's advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes to mind) Most don't bother to even check out the important authors that have been cited here. (Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been informally cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest. Yet they argue that they have some magical gift of listening which deternimes some products are 'better' than others and this should just be accepted as 'authority'. (usually citing magazine writers and editors better known for manipulating internal politics rather than any real contribution of knowledge) JJ quit contributing pretty much because it's like talking tp a brick wall. No, it doesn't follow. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science | Audio Opinions |