| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
tweaks and proof
In article 04PBc.92192$Sw.45974@attbi_s51,
Bromo wrote: Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. Another popular myth. The incident behind the myth is thought to have been a back-of-the-envelope (BOTE) calculation done at the dinner table when a biologist and an aerodynamicist were discussing the bumblebee. There was never a formal declaration that the bee could not fly because everybody knows that BOTE calculations are, shall we say, less than accurate. Sometimes they put you in the ballpark, sometimes they put you on cloud 9. Nobody has ever actually found even one formal scientific paper stating that bees can't fly. Which is pretty much what the myth would require to be true -- otherwise you can't say that "science" says the bumblebee can't fly. Also, the description "modern" hardly applies since the incident thought to have kicked the myth off took place more than 50 years ago. http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees -- Tim |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/21/04 10:46 AM, in article axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53, "Dick Pierce" wrote: The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what we were talking about. Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following tweaks: 1. Application of gren pens to CDs 2. Water filled audio cables 3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance the sound 4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible "glare" from a water faucet in the other room. 5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance the playback of CD's 6. CD demagnetizers 7. "micro-diodes" in cables 8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to have "no bearing" on what we were talking about? We weren't talking about any of them - so none of them - by increasing the range all you have done is to *try* to drag me into that mire and paint me with the incorrect brush. You were the one who was painting with the incorrect brush. You were basically saying that all claims deserve to be looked at. I gave examples of some claims that are patently untrue that should not be "noted and the root cause traced down". And then you said that those had no bearing to what you were talking about. What exactly were you talking about, and with whom? I would agree with you that there are many frauds out there - some even deliberate, I figure - but that is no reason to ridicule and denounce rather than disprove. I would only float that ridicule is not refutation - and it is not substitution for good objective science. That is interesting. When I brought up that warm milk claim, you responded that it was ridiculous. But it is also a mistake to substitute ridicule for refutation. When it comes to ridiculous claims, sometimes one can't help but laugh at them. Some of those claims are not worthy of further refutation. Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing," So ... What exactly are you getting at? That you can throw a lot of silly things on top of what we were talking about , and refute *those* instead of what we were discussing? What exactly were you discussing? and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit. Actually, amongst a lot of quackery are some genuine well constructed, excellent sounding high end products. No one is suggesting that we ridicule the genuinely well-constructed, excellent sounding products. |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Chelvam wrote:
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message news:jKXBc.75809$Hg2.10677@attbi_s04... In article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03, "Chelvam" wrote: "Bromo" wrote in message news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04... On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: snip..snip.. It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar in effect. And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. What aviation engineer? When? Perhaps an aviation engineer might have said the early rumored Zero was aerodynamically impossible. He would have been right. Too bad google failed me on this one. But correct me if I am wrong. Two Japanese Companies were involved in the development of the Zero. Matsu****a did the job. the other company quit saying that it was impossible. When the American had its close encounter with Zero in China it was initially dismissed by the American that such thing was "aerodynamically impossible". I am not saying Zero defied physics but the initial assessment was sceptical because the knowhow then wasn't good enough. That's the same story about bumblebee. Yes we have the scientific explanation but if you look at the link provided by Ketil http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees there was once a Sainte-Lague, Magnan's lab assistant who was apparently some sort of engineer said so and furthermore the usual aerodynamics in 1930 would - I quote "makes back-of-envelope calculations next to hopeless" So, *one* engineer , over dinner, in response to an informal challenge by a biologist, did some napkin calculations (which assumed a rigid wing) and 'proved' that bumblebees don't fly like aeroplanes do. The biologist spread the tale to the press and ever since we've had ill-informed people claiming that 'scientists proved that bumblebees can't fly'. http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathland_3_31.html *This* supposedly supports the case that engineers might be wrong about cables and tweeks? -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy c |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: (Dick Pierce)
Date: 6/22/2004 4:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote in message news:04PBc.92192$Sw.45974@attbi_s51... On 6/21/04 12:00 AM, in article b3tBc.87266$0y.49768@attbi_s03, "Chelvam" wrote: "Bromo" wrote in message news:w4jBc.64693$Hg2.9199@attbi_s04... On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: snip..snip.. It was the observation and dogged pursuit of detail that revealed the real truth. This is not the same in magnitude, but similar in effect. And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what really is wrong with the high-end audio realm. Oh I get it. If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. |
|
#127
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
In article ,
"Chelvam" wrote: That's the same story about bumblebee. Yes we have the scientific explanation but if you look at the link provided by Ketil http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/98/bees there was once a Sainte-Lague, Magnan's lab assistant who was apparently some sort of engineer said so and furthermore the usual aerodynamics in 1930 would - I quote "makes back-of-envelope calculations next to hopeless" You are misrepresenting what was said. The paragraph you quote from made no claims about the state of aerodynamics in the 1930s. It actually said that the complex nature of insect flight aerodynamics makes BOTE calculations next to hopeless. -- Tim |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
In article , Bromo
wrote: On 6/20/04 8:42 PM, in article , "Dick Pierce" wrote: Win what? There's no "prize" here. At least not one worth winning. The problem has been solved, ages ago. That a bunch of yahoos in the high-end biz can't get their acts together and fix what ain't broken (often breaking it MUCH worse) is hardly any fight worth fighting. It's like being paired in a spelling bee against a garden slug: Yeah, I can win, but so what? But do all CD players implement the known fixes against jitter to reduce it below audibility (my guess is no since the CD's sound for consumer grade stuff seems to be getting worse as the decks get cheaper)? Your guess is wrong. It's actually hard to have bad jitter problems in a system as simple as a CD player. Jitter in telecom is much more of a problem. Yes, I have experience in the telecom world. Telecom is orders of magnitude more complex than CD digital audio. The basic problem is that phone companies need to multiplex many digital signals -- each with its own independent clock not guaranteed to be in sync with anything -- into higher rate carrier signals. Oh, and the higher rate stream is on yet another clock, not in sync with the lower rate streams. At each layer of multiplexing, the process must not change any information from the slower channels (dropping samples or adding silence is explicitly not allowed). The techniques used to accomplish that feat add lots of effective jitter to the original signals, but most of it gets removed after demuxing. In a CD player there is no multiplexing. Data is read from a source (the disc) into a FIFO buffer. The output of the FIFO is clocked into a DAC using a single clock source. Jitter, if audible, will come from that clock; there isn't any stage which can actively add jitter like you'll find in telecom. Crystal oscillators with jitter way too low to be audible are dirt cheap, especially at the relevant frequencies (due to volume sales). Do all amplifiers implement the known, mature fixes to respond properly to transients? Probably not. And I don't think mistakes would be relegated to the "high end." They are much more likely at the "high end". Only in the "high end" audio market is it possible to design and market a DAC with the reconstruction filter LEFT OFF because the 'engineer' behind the product believes said filters corrupt the sound. Anybody that incompetent would never make it at a company where the design has to meet at least some objective standards of performance. -- Tim |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Dick Pierce wrote in message ...
Chelvam said: Please, if you would, cite the "aviation engineer" who made such a definitive claim. Sir, "bricks" are "aerodynamically possible." Is this the beginning of yet another urban legend? Once it was thought, bumble bee couldn't fly. Urban legend, too? Google search for the history of Zero plane and why one out of two company backed out. |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TChelvam wrote:
Once it was thought, bumble bee couldn't fly. Urban legend, too? Certainly not urban truth. The was a time when we didn't know *how* bumblebees flew. But we always knew that they *could* fly, because we could see it with our own eyes. That's where the comparison to high-end audio mythology breaks down. It's not just that we aren't measuring the right things or we can't explain why two electronic components sound different. In the case of audio, we don't even know if they *do* sound different. And all attempts to come up with empirical evidence that they do have come up empty. It's like saying, "Just because science can't yet explain how pigs could fly, that doesn't mean that pigs can't fly." bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win a trip to NY http://www.msnmessenger-download.cli...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 22 Jun 2004 23:11:47 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote:
Too bad google failed me on this one. But correct me if I am wrong. Two Japanese Companies were involved in the development of the Zero. Matsu****a did the job. the other company quit saying that it was impossible. Perfectly reasonable (and indeed quite common) for an engineering company to declare that a given specification is beyond its capability. *Management* has been known to disguise this with a statement that the spec is impossible................ When the American had its close encounter with Zero in China it was initially dismissed by the American that such thing was "aerodynamically impossible". Unlikely to have been an American *engineer* who declared this. Propaganda needs might well have required such an *official* declaration however, in a misguided attempt to to maintain morale. Hopefully, some intelligent aerial combat tacticians took the data as observed, and worked out ways to compensate for basic inferiority, as Britain did with Hurricanes battling ME109s. I am not saying Zero defied physics but the initial assessment was sceptical because the knowhow then wasn't good enough. That is of course quite a different matter, as with the bumblebee (which is another urban myth never actually tracked down). -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
chung wrote:
Bromo wrote: Actually, amongst a lot of quackery are some genuine well constructed, excellent sounding high end products. No one is suggesting that we ridicule the genuinely well-constructed, excellent sounding products. But if the explanations provided for their performance are quack, those explanations deserve ridicule. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
Oh I get it. If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. No, he brings this Urban Myth because he wants to discredit science, a strange act of an allegedly "Electronic Engineer". And I want to see the difference between painting your CDplayer or amplifier with Ennemosers C37 varnish, or bathing it in milk. This analogy is absulutely valid. Of course it hurts if you have paid such a lot of money for some inefficient tweak, you want at least persuade some other clueless fellows to do the same, so you do not feel alone. But this doesn't proof anything exept missing scientific thinking. And because science is opening your eyes or brain-cells you discredit it as well. But the truth is powerful and eventually will win. In a professional recording studio you won't find useless and extremely expensive accessories like esoteric interconnects, C37 and speaker cables, because the owner will invest his money only in useful components. A 12gauge Belden Speaker cable does the job beautifully why waste the bucks for some thin pure silver cable that is actually worse? And if this is good enough for the studio where the recording was made, why does the HiFi-freak need those things to listen to CDs or LPs? It just shows his inability to evaluate the components of his gear, embarrassing isn't it? -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:fd9Cc.72269$2i5.31234@attbi_s52... Exactly. Which is why Bose, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Harman, Klipsch, Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, Polk and the like sell more products and generate more revenue than high-end companies. After years of playing this game and not being very happy or certain of any calim I have learned to trust my own ears and perception. Frequently I run across peopel who don't talk or think but, spit out the latest internet hype as if it were fact. I played a game on a co-worker last year. We both have Revel M20 speakers. He was running a integrated amp. I told him I had just bought a McCormack DNA-125 to replace my Adcom GFA-555 mkII as I thought the Adcom made music through the Revels sound dry and boring, lab like. Very clear and concise but, no emotion to them. Time went by. We engaged in conversation one afternoon as he wanted to upgrade from integrated to separates but, he wasn't sure he would be able to tell the difference as he loved his integrated. (Money was the real issue. If what I have is perfect, then I don't need to spend money that I can use elsewhere, therefore I'm happy) I told him he could borrow my Adcom stuff as I had bought a new amp to try out. He jumped on the chance and asked why I switched gear. (He had forgotten our earlier conversation). I told him I thought the top end was a little grainy on the top end. It wasn't as noticeable on the Revels as it was on the Monitor Audio's I had. (terribly fatiguing speakers btw). 2 weeks later he gave me the Adcom gear back saying that they made his Revels sound Sterile, dry and boring. No emotion or musicalness to them. It was almost verbatim what I had implanted in him 6 months earlier. I would bet if I had the means to level match these two amps, no one would be able to tell the difference between them except under or after very long term listening. I do THINK the McCormack is a little fatter sounding. I only notice it when I switch the amps out and after a few weeks find myself yearning for the McCormack again. This same thing happened between the Klipsch LaScala's I had and the M20's. It took a lot of time to desire on one over the other. The LaScala's were fuller and fatter sounding but the Revels were a tinge smoother. What would today's Klipsch Reference speakers be like? I bet they'd be awesome and wish someone would lend me a set of 7's to try out. I listened to them briefly before buying the M20's. They did everything right but, I was determined to get a "special" speaker something that was made as best as possible so I wouldn't want to upgrade anytime soon. And Klipsch is run of the mill stuff, right? Phooey! I had a set of Polk's that if they hadn't been stolen, they still be in my system today, especially at the price new speakers sell for. I would love to hear their new LSi series but it's not carried around here. As to the Revels, I haven't found anything yet, to match them or make me want to trade up other than another set of larger Revels like the F50. A few months back, a neighbor contacted Transparent Audio and received a $20k (USD) set of speaker cables and interconnects. Yes, twenty thousand dollars! He runs Revels (studio or Salon) and Mark Levinson components. I hooked the stuff up and switched so that he wasn't aware of what was being used. After a few hours, he was mildly upset as he couldn't hear any difference between his $20k wires and much, much, cheaper Cardas cabling. I bet him $20 that if I brought over my el cheapo wiring he wouldn't be able to hear any difference either. I haven't heard back from him. John |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Timothy A. Seufert" wrote in message
... In article 04PBc.92192$Sw.45974@attbi_s51, Bromo wrote: snip...snip... Nobody has ever actually found even one formal scientific paper stating that bees can't fly. Ok that's fine. No scientific paper to say bumble bee can't fly. But is there any scientific paper dismissing racing cone, green pen, Shakti stones and etc, etc. p.s. I cc the email to your because there several posting of mine gone missing. Hope you wouldn't mind. |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Chelvam wrote:
Ok that's fine. No scientific paper to say bumble bee can't fly. But is there any scientific paper dismissing racing cone, green pen, Shakti stones and etc, etc. Probably not. Scientists are in the business of probing the unknown and expanding knowledge. Debunking snake oil and quackery like this wouldn't do that. If you understand how CDs work, you understand why green pens don't. It's not worth thinking about for a second beyond this. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel Guide! http://dollar.msn.com |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. People in the high-end business are making claims that precisely contradict principles of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of "theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof. Once again the grand invocation of the laws of physics. The notion that an amp or even a cable may sound different from another amp or cable is hardly a claim that violates the laws of physics let alone the rules of arithmetic. Now you are assuming than when we say ridiculous claim ,we are talking about cables or amps sounding different? That's clearly a strawman. They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research, and make such claims without a single shred of evidence to support that claim. Really? There was research on the effects of green pen on CD playback as long ago as a century? News to me. By the way there is some evidence to support the claims. It is anecdotal and not worth much but it does exist. You don't get it. The sentence "They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research" does not mean that the research was done as long ago as a century ago. It means that results of carefully performed research in the last 100 years or more contradict the claims behind those tweaks. As a side note, competent physicists could easily debunk those tweaks based only on the laws of physics known a hundred years ago. If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh?  The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what we were talking about. Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following tweaks: 1. Application of gren pens to CDs 2. Water filled audio cables 3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance the sound 4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible "glare" from a water faucet in the other room. 5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance the playback of CD's 6. CD demagnetizers 7. "micro-diodes" in cables 8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players Dubious claims yes. You are being generous to call them dubious. But why invoke the laws of physics or vaguely refer to century old research (I am curious what research was done over a century ago that would have any bearing on "demagnitizing" CDs, note that the Bedini contraption is not claimed to demagnetize a CD, or micro-diodes in cables, whatever that is)? That's because you did not understand what was written. For a group of people who seem to complain so much about hyperbole this seems a bit much. How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to have "no bearing" on what we were talking about? Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing," and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit. Really? Get rid of the fringe tweak products and everything else in the high end is OK? wow Whether everything is OK depends on whether you think high-end is OK if it's reality based. Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then? I suppose not. Can't say I ever had any use for any of the tweaks you cited. I haven't really tested my faucets for audible glare. I do know I hear them when I turn the water on. I hope everyone else does too. Running water does make noise. Glare? hmmm. would it upset anyone if I said they sounded wet? |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Since I am German, my mother born in Holstein, I know of a few cows (near
Wedel) that provide directional milk. The fat content can be picked to equalize the bass response without phase shift. I can get it for about $3000/gallon, min. 2 gallon per order. Honestly, how can cable be directional, if the old electrons are going back and forth anyway? "Nousaine" wrote in message ... chung wrote: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 10:37 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh? Oh please; the milk treatment depends on the type of milk used. Holstein is the best sounding milk by a large margin. Jersey is acceptable but Gurnsey has too much butter-fat and causes heavy-bass. Goat or sheep-milk? Better stick to cheese. |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/22/2004 11:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: fd9Cc.72269$2i5.31234@attbi_s52 Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:08 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: So I'm of the opinion that IF folks want us to buy into amp/wire/bit sound you have to step up to the plate and hit the ball. Argument and debate just isn't good enough. Except with a reality check - they do vote - with their wallets. Exactly. Which is why Bose, Pioneer, Sony, Toshiba, Panasonic, Harman, Klipsch, Paradigm, Boston Acoustics, Polk and the like sell more products and generate more revenue than high-end companies. "They" can have Bose and McDonalds, I will stick with my Soundlabs, even if they are not the best *selling* speakers in the world. I will not jump off a cliff even if Johnny does. |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
In article ,
Bromo writes: But do all CD players implement the known fixes against jitter to reduce it below audibility (my guess is no since the CD's sound for consumer grade stuff seems to be getting worse as the decks get cheaper)? You must have missed the discussion on several multi-players mentioned here a few months ago. These units played DVD-V, DVD-A, and CD, and their playback quality was raved about by both objectivists and subjectivists. They were all in the $150 range. |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"chung" wrote in message
... Oh yeah? So, do you believe cables need broken in, or there is directivity in cables? Why do you think my example is any more ridiculous than, say, cable-lifters? Speaking of cable break-in, somewhere I saw instructions from a cable company that not only claimed their cables needed break in, but also required more or less continuous use, otherwise they would revert to their original condition! IIRC, 3 weeks of vacation necessitated re-breakin. Surely there must be some point where we can stop serious evaluation of these claims, just throw our heads back and laugh out loud. :-) Norm Strong |
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. People in the high-end business are making claims that precisely contradict principles of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of "theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof. Once again the grand invocation of the laws of physics. The notion that an amp or even a cable may sound different from another amp or cable is hardly a claim that violates the laws of physics let alone the rules of arithmetic. Now you are assuming than when we say ridiculous claim ,we are talking about cables or amps sounding different? That's clearly a strawman. Many on RAHE such as Tom Nousaine and Stewart Pinkerton have called cable sound a ridiculous claim. No assumption is being made on my part here. Tom has ridiculed amp sound many many times on RAHE. They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research, and make such claims without a single shred of evidence to support that claim. Really? There was research on the effects of green pen on CD playback as long ago as a century? News to me. By the way there is some evidence to support the claims. It is anecdotal and not worth much but it does exist. You don't get it. The sentence "They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research" does not mean that the research was done as long ago as a century ago. It means some of it was. It means that results of carefully performed research in the last 100 years or more contradict the claims behind those tweaks. Yeah so some of it must be from a century ago. I'm not sure what that would be. As a side note, competent physicists could easily debunk those tweaks based only on the laws of physics known a hundred years ago. Care to show us? If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh? The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what we were talking about. Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following tweaks: 1. Application of gren pens to CDs 2. Water filled audio cables 3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance the sound 4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible "glare" from a water faucet in the other room. 5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance the playback of CD's 6. CD demagnetizers 7. "micro-diodes" in cables 8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players Dubious claims yes. You are being generous to call them dubious. No, I am simply not engaging in the same sort of hyperbole that I find ironic. But why invoke the laws of physics or vaguely refer to century old research (I am curious what research was done over a century ago that would have any bearing on "demagnitizing" CDs, note that the Bedini contraption is not claimed to demagnetize a CD, or micro-diodes in cables, whatever that is)? That's because you did not understand what was written. Sure I did. The claim includes research that is over a century old. Please feel free to cite the research. Sorry but it is hyperbole. ironic IMO given the distain for subjectivst hyperbole shown so often here on RAHE. For a group of people who seem to complain so much about hyperbole this seems a bit much. How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to have "no bearing" on what we were talking about? Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing," and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit. Really? Get rid of the fringe tweak products and everything else in the high end is OK? wow Whether everything is OK depends on whether you think high-end is OK if it's reality based. I think it is just fine for my needs. I am getting realism in my playback that I never thought possible before discovering high end audio. Wouldn't THAT be a tragedy, then? I suppose not. Can't say I ever had any use for any of the tweaks you cited. I haven't really tested my faucets for audible glare. I do know I hear them when I turn the water on. I hope everyone else does too. Running water does make noise. Glare? hmmm. would it upset anyone if I said they sounded wet? |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#150
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 6/23/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:fq9Cc.98196$0y.4622@attbi_s03... And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what really is wrong with the high-end audio realm. Oh I get it. No, you don't get it. Yes I did. I don't think so. If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. If that's what you "got," you most assuredly didn't "get it." If this is your response then you didn't get it when you read my post. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Now, what we see is proof by WRONG anaology. What we see is argument by strawman. I would agree that your proofs by bad analogy were pretty much straw man arguments. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. No, what YOU don't get is that science provides an answer that Bromo doesn't like. Like I said, you didn't get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. Whether Mr. Bromo believes that bumblebees can or cannot fly is not the issue. The fact is that Mr. Bromo is using that urban legend to show how engineers can be clueless, or how scientists can be wrong. He is making the point that engineering can lead to absurd conclusions. I think everyone else reads that correctly. So, rather than ever entertain the possibility that HE'S wrong, he'll dredge up some tired, worn, overused nonsense urban legend as a means of impugning the science he doesn't like. Um no, he simply brought up another urban legend. He didn't claim it was true. He doesn't bother to see whether the "bumblebee" legend has any basis in fact, rather, it provides a convenient strawman to knock down. OK. One of us is quite off base here. Looked to me like he was bringing it up as a joke. As a joke intended to ridicule engineering and science. ....snipped... When confronted with facts, on of their few remaining defenses is "Well, science proved that bumblebees can't fly." Indeed, if you believe that is comming from Bromo or from the designers of high end audio equipment you didn't "get it" at all. It's a common position among high-end audiophiles and marketeers that current engineering knowledge cannot explain claimed sonic differences, just like certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly. Hence when no technical explanation is forthcoming, it's simply because engineering has been found to be deficient. To call the people who came up with some of the tweaks Dick mentioned "designers" is an insult to the real designers. |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. I would agree that "Legityimate" audio DBT's are beyond anyone's skills .I find it surprising that you don't believe it only requires listening skills to take part in a DBT. You think your hearing is better than a primary school student's? These kids are excellent testees. What is difficult about DBT's that a primary school student cannot learn to do that well? People in the high-end business are making claims that precisely contradict principles of engineering and physics that have achieved the status of "theorem" (not theory) through rigorous proof. Once again the grand invocation of the laws of physics. The notion that an amp or even a cable may sound different from another amp or cable is hardly a claim that violates the laws of physics let alone the rules of arithmetic. Now you are assuming than when we say ridiculous claim ,we are talking about cables or amps sounding different? That's clearly a strawman. Many on RAHE such as Tom Nousaine and Stewart Pinkerton have called cable sound a ridiculous claim. No assumption is being made on my part here. Tom has ridiculed amp sound many many times on RAHE. You were responding specifically to Dick's claims that he listed. By the way, Tom and Stewart always put in the "competent" qualification. Add that in that sentence, and it is not ridiculous at all. They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research, and make such claims without a single shred of evidence to support that claim. Really? There was research on the effects of green pen on CD playback as long ago as a century? News to me. By the way there is some evidence to support the claims. It is anecdotal and not worth much but it does exist. You don't get it. The sentence "They make claims about tweaks that contradict a century or more of vast and carefully performed research" does not mean that the research was done as long ago as a century ago. It means some of it was. And Dick never said the green pen CD was researched over a decade ago. That was what you ridiculed. You have got to read better. It means that results of carefully performed research in the last 100 years or more contradict the claims behind those tweaks. Yeah so some of it must be from a century ago. I'm not sure what that would be. As a side note, competent physicists could easily debunk those tweaks based only on the laws of physics known a hundred years ago. Care to show us? Why should I take the time to debunk baseless claims? (If you missed it, that was my whole point in objecting to Bromo's post.) Go ask some of your friends familiar with physics to do you the favoe. If I tell you that after washing my amp in warm milk, the sound is so much more liquid, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Or have you lost your ability to laugh? The ridiculous example you give does not have a bearing on what we were talking about. Begging your pardon, but it is precisely this sort of ridiculous claim that the entire topic bears upon. Consider the following tweaks: 1. Application of gren pens to CDs 2. Water filled audio cables 3. The placement of small wooden pucks around the room to enhance the sound 4. The strident claim by an editorial contributor to one of the prominent high-end magazines of the dramatic effects of audible "glare" from a water faucet in the other room. 5. Armor-all as an "optical impedance matching fluid" to enhance the playback of CD's 6. CD demagnetizers 7. "micro-diodes" in cables 8. Blue "dithering LEDs" in expensive CD players Dubious claims yes. You are being generous to call them dubious. No, I am simply not engaging in the same sort of hyperbole that I find ironic. Dubious implies doubt and uncertainty. So it looks like you are uncertain about whether these things work or not. OK. But why invoke the laws of physics or vaguely refer to century old research (I am curious what research was done over a century ago that would have any bearing on "demagnitizing" CDs, note that the Bedini contraption is not claimed to demagnetize a CD, or micro-diodes in cables, whatever that is)? That's because you did not understand what was written. Sure I did. The claim includes research that is over a century old. Research done in the last 100 years. Like understanding how sound waves travel. How E-M waves work. Like Maxwell's Equations. Like diffraction. Like using cables to carry signals at power levels a billionth of those in speaker cables. Or a billionth of the current and/or voltages found in audio applications. Or millions times higher in frequencies. Dick never said green pen CD research was done over a 100 years ago, a point you seem to find amusing and significant. Although the properties of light wave in this context were understood a century ago, so indeed the research necessary to refute the green pen claim was done a century ago. Please feel free to cite the research. Sometimes you just have to some some work yourself. It would be too much work to explain it so that anyone can understand. Sorry but it is hyperbole. ironic IMO given the distain for subjectivst hyperbole shown so often here on RAHE. For a group of people who seem to complain so much about hyperbole this seems a bit much. How many more of these "ridiculous examples" do you consider to have "no bearing" on what we were talking about? Get rid of ALL these "ridiculous examples" that "have no bearing," and all of a sudden, the high-end biz is transformed from a back-water freak-tweal cottage industry governed by mysticism, quackery and a few vocal, wide-eyed magazine wonks into a reality-based pursuit. Really? Get rid of the fringe tweak products and everything else in the high end is OK? wow Whether everything is OK depends on whether you think high-end is OK if it's reality based. I think it is just fine for my needs. I am getting realism in my playback that I never thought possible before discovering high end audio. Then why ask the question? If everything in high-end audio is OK now, you probably don't want things to change. |
|
#152
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/24/2004 9:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: NeDCc.100206$Sw.74615@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 6/23/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:fq9Cc.98196$0y.4622@attbi_s03... And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what really is wrong with the high-end audio realm. Oh I get it. No, you don't get it. Yes I did. I don't think so. I think you are mistaken If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. If that's what you "got," you most assuredly didn't "get it." If this is your response then you didn't get it when you read my post. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Now, what we see is proof by WRONG anaology. What we see is argument by strawman. I would agree that your proofs by bad analogy were pretty much straw man arguments. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. No, what YOU don't get is that science provides an answer that Bromo doesn't like. Like I said, you didn't get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. Whether Mr. Bromo believes that bumblebees can or cannot fly is not the issue. it sertainly is part of the issue. The fact is that Mr. Bromo is using that urban legend to show how engineers can be clueless, or how scientists can be wrong. That is the issue. He never did that. He cited it as another urban legend. He never claimed it proved anything. Looked like he was just bringing up some trivia to me. He is making the point that engineering can lead to absurd conclusions. I think everyone else reads that correctly. I guess we will have to let Bromo tell us why he mentioned it, So, rather than ever entertain the possibility that HE'S wrong, he'll dredge up some tired, worn, overused nonsense urban legend as a means of impugning the science he doesn't like. Um no, he simply brought up another urban legend. He didn't claim it was true. He doesn't bother to see whether the "bumblebee" legend has any basis in fact, rather, it provides a convenient strawman to knock down. OK. One of us is quite off base here. Looked to me like he was bringing it up as a joke. As a joke intended to ridicule engineering and science. Reaaaally? he told you this was his intention in a private message? He never said so on the thread. Not that I saw. Maybe we should leave it to Briomo to tell us if he brought this urban legend up to ridcule engineering and science. Gosh, weren't you the one asking where someone else's sense of humor was? ...snipped... When confronted with facts, on of their few remaining defenses is "Well, science proved that bumblebees can't fly." Indeed, if you believe that is comming from Bromo or from the designers of high end audio equipment you didn't "get it" at all. It's a common position among high-end audiophiles and marketeers that current engineering knowledge cannot explain claimed sonic differences, Really? It is common? Of the many marketeers in highend audio, how many and which ones explicitly claim that current engineering *cannot* "explain" (meaning measure?) claimed sonic differences? And what does this have to do with Bromo mentioning the bumblebee urban legend? just like certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly. This is something you are now bringing to the discussion. Bromo, as far as I can see, simply cited anotyher urban legend when another urban legend was being discussed. Did he claim that "certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly?" Hence when no technical explanation is forthcoming, it's simply because engineering has been found to be deficient. I think you are reading a lot into what was nothing more than a refernce to an urban legend. To call the people who came up with some of the tweaks Dick mentioned "designers" is an insult to the real designers. People of all ilks have to endure such insults. In any endevour there are geniuses and fools and everything inbetween. for the sake of clarity I feel it is best to call them designers. |
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: chung ....snips.... S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. I noticed the poster said 'testees' which I took to mean as subjects. Now you are assuming than when we say ridiculous claim ,we are talking about cables or amps sounding different? That's clearly a strawman. Many on RAHE such as Tom Nousaine and Stewart Pinkerton have called cable sound a ridiculous claim. No assumption is being made on my part here. Tom has ridiculed amp sound many many times on RAHE. I beg your pardon. I've said time and again that no subjectvist (or objectivist,for that matter) has ever demonstrated an ability to actually "hear" the sound of a nominally competent amplifier (or wire) when bias controls have been employed. If pointing out that no one has ever brought in a Bigfoot dead or alive is or introduced a legitimate alien who is visiting is "ridicule" I guess I could be found guilty on a technicality. But it's not an actionable offense IMO. |
|
#154
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
normanstrong wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Oh yeah? So, do you believe cables need broken in, or there is directivity in cables? Why do you think my example is any more ridiculous than, say, cable-lifters? Speaking of cable break-in, somewhere I saw instructions from a cable company that not only claimed their cables needed break in, but also required more or less continuous use, otherwise they would revert to their original condition! IIRC, 3 weeks of vacation necessitated re-breakin. Surely there must be some point where we can stop serious evaluation of these claims, just throw our heads back and laugh out loud. :-) Norm Strong Any unusual claim that is not backed by test results (measurements or controlled listening tests) does not deserve serious evaluation, IMO. What is sad is that among high-enders, the claim that cable needs to be broken in seems to be the popular belief rather than a myth. |
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Chelvam intoned:
Nobody has ever actually found even one formal scientific paper stating that bees can't fly. Ok that's fine. No scientific paper to say bumble bee can't fly. But is there any scientific paper dismissing racing cone, green pen, Shakti stones and etc, etc. Is there any scientific paper dismissing green cheese on the moon? No? The the moon MUST be made of green cheese, by implication. You either don't seem to be able or don't want to get with the notion that it's not up to the rest of the world to prove an extraordinary claim is WRONG, it's up to the person making that claim to prove the claim is right, and that means it's up to the green pen, magic CD, miraculous cable, wooden puck, blue dithering CD player, blue-tak claimants to provide the evidence. Besides, you do remember the fact that the green pen craze STARTED as an April Fool's joke, yes? +---------------------------------------+ | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | (1) 781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | +---------------------------------------+ |
|
#156
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Nousaine wrote:
Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone causing some sort of acoustic problem. Gee, I thought, and what about the rest of the stuff in the room resonating? Light bulbs tend to have a 'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off. There seems to a be a lot of pseudo science in high end audio. I remember trying the VPI "magic" bricks about 20 years ago. They were 'suppose' to 'absorb' stray magnetic fields from power supplies along with 'dampening' a components chassis. The 'absorb' thing went right by me. The dampening, well, if that were a problem, a real brick is a lot cheaper. Neither of those 'problems' seemed to effect my system. And this 'magic brick' was from a company that makes an outstanding turntable (I own a VPI HW19). Those magic bricks sure looked nice and were heavy. But work? I can't see how. |
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. |
|
#158
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. Baloney? Really? "If you hear . . . push the button A or B" Grade school kids have learned less, (especially about scepticism) and have excellent hearing. A simpler intelligence and less accumulation of comparitive knowlegde in order to form a bias are a good thing for a simple blind test. The confounding interpretation of our smart but very emotional brains are what is at issue here. |
|
#159
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
TonyP wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone causing some sort of acoustic problem. Gee, I thought, and what about the rest of the stuff in the room resonating? Light bulbs tend to have a 'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off. IIRC , she also wrote that you should remove *all* metal from the listening room. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#160
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 6/24/2004 12:08 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: EEFCc.138973$3x.22532@attbi_s54 (S888Wheel) wrote: From: chung ...snips.... S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. I noticed the poster said 'testees' which I took to mean as subjects. But you didn't notice he also said testers? Now who is doing the debunking? The testees or the testors? Remember the context of the claim that grade school kids could debunk green pen just as well as they can do basic math. Now you are assuming than when we say ridiculous claim ,we are talking about cables or amps sounding different? That's clearly a strawman. Many on RAHE such as Tom Nousaine and Stewart Pinkerton have called cable sound a ridiculous claim. No assumption is being made on my part here. Tom has ridiculed amp sound many many times on RAHE. I beg your pardon. I've said time and again that no subjectvist (or objectivist,for that matter) has ever demonstrated an ability to actually "hear" the sound of a nominally competent amplifier (or wire) when bias controls have been employed. Are you saying you have never ridiculed the notion of amp sound? If pointing out that no one has ever brought in a Bigfoot dead or alive is or introduced a legitimate alien who is visiting is "ridicule" I guess I could be found guilty on a technicality. But it's not an actionable offense IMO. I didn't pass any judgement on it in my post. I only cited it. Thanks for confirming my claim. |
Linear Mode
