Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupie Sillyborg on audio purchases



Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
aren't really relying on your ears.


This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.

  #2   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
aren't really relying on your ears.


This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.



This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".

Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.
All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.
Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.




Gareth.


  #3   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Gareth Magennis said:

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.



  #4   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.tech Gareth Magennis wrote:

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
aren't really relying on your ears.


This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.



This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.


er..scientists *are* objectivists

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".


Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit.


Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.

It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.


Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.


Apparently.

All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.


And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.


Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.


Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S
  #5   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Gareth Magennis said:


So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?
That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.



--

-S


  #6   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sillyborg stuttered:

My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?


Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.

That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.


Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.

3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)

4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.




  #7   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Sillyborg stuttered:


My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.


For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?


Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.



Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.


It's not hypocritical, though.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.


Yes, do. Pull my wings off.


I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:


Oh goody.

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.


Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.
I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.


I certainly do care about the quality of my system. That's why I
didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.

Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?
Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."

N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)


These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.

If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.
But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.

I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?


Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.



Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

They also want generally believe they'll live forever,
to think they're beautiful/handsome/popular, to think they are successful
and smart (including smart in their audio buying).

High-end marketing is happy to encourage them on all those counts except
perhaps price.

Now, what is the relation of what people *believe* about what they buy,
to the truth about what they buy? Is it always a one-to-one
correspondence? How do we know when it isn't?

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.



--

-S
  #8   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message



This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never
going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction.


This is especially true since most audiophiles who throw
these terms around don't seem to know what the generally
accepted meanings of these words are. I pointed this out in
pretty good detail and by citing some pretty fair references
as part of my opening remarks at the HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. While I didn't quite come right out and say it,
Atkinson tortured these words in the style of Saddam Hussein
in his publicity blurb for the debate.

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in
their terms, and only those terms that are currently
known about qualify to be such terms, then such things
are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words
"false, true, proof etc".


That would be sheerist BS. Scientists have literally
centuries of experience dealing with things that they can't
fully explain.One of the most if not the most fundamental
rules of science is that any particular explanation is
provisional, and only valid until it is falsified. The
falsification of long-standing beliefs is very common in
Science. Furthermore, beliefs that are in essence falsified
continue to have valid applications in broad areas of
scientific endeavor.

Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they
just know what they experience and don't know how to
explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they
simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit.


This would also be sheerist BS. So-called audio
objectivists are just people who are more comfortable
applying a fairly small and simple requirements to their
observations and beliefs. For example most so-called
objectivists affirm the validity of bias-controlled
listening tests. The whole idea of bias-controlled listening
tests is simple and common-sense. The basic idea of bias
controlled listening tests is that relevant influences that
are not directly related to hearing be managed in a
reasoanble way during the listening test. Furthermore, a
listening test is kind of a subjective evaluation, and if
objectivists were really the narrow fools that certain
people like to make them out to be, they should have no
interest in subjective evaluations of *any* kind. But these
so-called objectivists are quite interested and involved in
subjective evaluations, which brings the very fact that they
are called *objectivists* by some into question. Why are
these *objectivists* so interested and involved in
*subjective* evaluations? Perhaps they are not
*objectivists* at all but some kind of *subjectivist* after
all?

It must be very frustrating for them to be
confronted by scientists demanding that they explain
themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the
present.


As I explained just a few paragraphs back this is a straw
man argument based on Gareth's poor understanding of audio
objectivists and science itself.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be
"true" is beyond me.


Well, now we get down to Gareth's *real* problem. He doesn't
really believe in anything at all. He seems to doubt that
anybody can believe anything.

All that can really be shown,
surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with
the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
existance.


This ignores the converse possibility that an observation
can agree with a model or hypothesis. In the real world, as
opposed to Gerth's world of constant disagrement,
observations may or may not agree with a hypothesis.





  #9   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.


  #10   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.


er..scientists *are* objectivists



My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists




Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".


Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this
intellectual
persuit.


Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.




My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".
Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


Gareth..









It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well
be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.


Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond
me.


Apparently.


All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem
to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
existance.


And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining
if
we want it to agree with such observations.


Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are
never
going to win this argument.


Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S





  #11   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

....

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it
  #12   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

...

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics.
Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years
away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it



I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how
people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
happening. And I believe that as we progess we will discover, as man always
has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on.
And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding
that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of
science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory
as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which
could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that
right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We
are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of
thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by
thinking we know it all now.


Gareth.


  #13   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we


mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.

progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.


The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio? I
don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
disagree.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it
  #14   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we


mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.


But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
and experience of the Audiophile.



progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.


The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio?
I
don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
disagree.



Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.


Gareth.





Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it



  #15   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be


Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.




My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional.
All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the
current explanation is the wrong one.

Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence.

You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".


This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything
is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine
another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because
something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely
to be wrong (or right).

Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have
NO technology, for one thing.

Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A
scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who
believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person
who repeats the observation under the same conditions.
That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific
facts in India versus Canada versus the US.

Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion
there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to
adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something.
It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one
determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another
form of model building.





  #16   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth,


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:


My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as

...


you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.


Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually
green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all.

I mean, by Gareth's logic.

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;


  #17   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we


mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.


But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
and experience of the Audiophile.


The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?

All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.


Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.



Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
turned out to be *lucky guesses*.


--

-S
  #18   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.

Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.


Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


I’ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.

BTW, I’ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)


That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.


It's not hypocritical, though.


It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only “tests”
can tell you how something sounds, but you don’t do any yourself. Where’s the
honesty? Where’s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)


1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.


Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.


That’s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
know what the “tests” in question are really like until you’ve actually done
them.)

I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.


That doesn’t count because it’s only practice, not real. You have zero
experience and zero knowledge of your precious “tests”.

In my view, there’s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You’re
not motivated to discover the truth because you don’t care at all how any system
sounds.

Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?


Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.


I certainly do care about the quality of my system.


No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
times.

That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound.


You don’t mean “includes good sound”. You mean “regardless of how it sounds”.
You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.

I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
different ways. I’ve listened to a lot of different brands and I’ve owned a
couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It’s not
at all difficult to hear differences among them.

But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
mail-ordered. You are a robot.

Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.


Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
they’re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn’t know any of
this because you didn’t bother to find out.

The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
store is “robot”. That’s you, Sillybot.

Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?


Hey, that’s better than low-end. I’ll bet it sounds decent.

BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don’t hear something is
idiotic. You da ‘bot!

Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."


Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.

N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


Hardly™. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I’m as pecunious as
anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)


These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.


But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
separate preamp would be? If so, you’re the most ignorant robot ever.

If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.


0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!

But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.


This is truly twisted. You’re a pervbot.

I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
cost a few bucks, but it’ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.

4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?


Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.



Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.


But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.


You don’t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.

  #19   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?


I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.


Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
because
the listener *heard* them as different.


The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?


Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.

Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear
doesn;t
emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
turned out to be *lucky guesses*.


Agreed. Things like the Space Shuttle and farily reliable
cures for once-fatal cancers are in some sense the "ultimate
truth".

Useful stuff like Flash USB storage doesn't work because of
favorable reviewer opinions.


  #20   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Steven,

Steven Sullivan wrote in
:

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;


no, not with this meaning of "open". I'm quite confident (which is quite
different from having "faith") that science has found a way to describe the
reality that is reliable enough for most of our needs, so I stick with it.
To tell the whole truth I'm even a bit reluctant to use the word
"science" when applied to audio. For the most part audio is just proper
application of well known scientific facts, so probably the word
"technology" is more adequate than "science" when talking about it.
Does this means that I have a closed mind? Don't know, but I wonder
if audio deserves so much "philosophycal" discussion about it. For me it's
just a matter of reproducing what's on records with as much accuracy as
possible. That's just because I have great respect for the artists and
their work, so I hate to have it modified by my audio system. So far I saw
no better way to ensure accuracy than relying on technology and, when
needed, science, at least as I know it, which is no different than your
intepretation.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it


  #21   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we

mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.


But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
reality
and experience of the Audiophile.


The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?


It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.
And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.



All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.


Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.



Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?



Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.




Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
turned out to be *lucky guesses*.


--

-S



  #22   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Gareth Magennis said:

And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in.


Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.


Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.




  #23   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #24   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff.


No, you'd just like to pretend that it is, in order to cook up some
fanciful theory to justify your own prejudice. There's a century of
scientific investigation that says you're wrong.

We are talking about how
people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
happening.


There is *lots* of explanation of why people *imagine* such
differences, there is *zero* likelihood that they really exist.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #25   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?


I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.


Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
because
the listener *heard* them as different.


The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?


Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.


I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
for bragging about his high-priced amps.

BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."

Stephen


  #26   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?


I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.


Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
because
the listener *heard* them as different.


The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.


It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
similarly fooled.
  #27   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1...
Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
:

I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
about how people react with science, and I think it is little
understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we

mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.


But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
reality
and experience of the Audiophile.


The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?


It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.


But it may be only as 'real' as that mirage, or that *mistaken idea*.

Or are there *no* mistaken ideas, only 'personal truths'?

And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.


Wrong. I'm telling him that the *cause* that *he* has deduced
for his experience isn't *necessarily* what he believes it is.
A person stares at a cloud and experiences that it changes shape.
The person concludes that the cloud changed shape because he stared at it.
That's his personal idea of the 'truth' of the matter, but wouldn't you agree
that this line of reasoning is open to question, and that other
causes for the perceived shape change are not only plausible,
but perhaps even more likely to be true?

All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.

Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.



Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?



Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.



Yet the subjectivist will go on using an example of
the patent evidence that some 'realities' are 'universal' --
namely, his computer.

Remarkable.



--

-S
  #28   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:


Gareth Magennis said:


And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in.


Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.


Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
the most tenuous grasp of logic.

And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.


Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.


The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
Enjoy yourselves.




--

-S
  #29   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?


I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.


Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
because
the listener *heard* them as different.


The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?


Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.


I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
for bragging about his high-priced amps.


BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."


Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
outcome ;





--

-S
  #30   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion George Middius wrote:


The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.


Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.


Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


I?ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.


BTW, I?ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)


Yes, your little Napoleon hat fits you quite nicely. Feel free to
demote or promote at will, general.


That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.


This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.


It's not hypocritical, though.


It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only ?tests?
can tell you how something sounds, but you don?t do any yourself. Where?s the
honesty? Where?s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)



No, because generally I don't talk about how something sounded to
me, do I?


1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.


Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.


That?s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
know what the ?tests? in question are really like until you?ve actually done
them.)


If it were true that such 'direct' knowledge was the only valid basis
for accepting the rationale for a method, then it would be pointless
to cite scientific work. The only
allowable cites would be from those who actually have repeated the
particular experiment, which isn't what happens, of course.
Certainly actually *doing* it could *help* a dullard understand it, but
it's not *necessary*. Some people are smart enough to grasp
the facts and reasoning behind DBTs without actually doing them.

Btw, if your claims about 'real' knowlege were true,
it would also mean that *you* must acknowledge the validity of say,
Tom Nousaine or Arny Kruger's *direct* experience with gear DBTs.

And too, it would mean that your dismissal of my, or anyone's,
sound system and/or hearing abilities would be invalid,s ince you've
never experienced them firsthand.

Somehow, I don't see you doing either any time soon.

However, you ranting that it's 'zero knowlege' alas doesn't make it
true in the real world.



I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.


That doesn?t count because it?s only practice, not real. You have zero
experience and zero knowledge of your precious ?tests?.



Curious. How is doing a DBT only *practice* for doing a DBT? You're flailing
here, generalissimo.


In my view, there?s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You?re
not motivated to discover the truth because you don?t care at all how any system
sounds.


Gosh, then why castigate me for not having done gear DBTs? You wouldn't believe my
results if I did.


Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?


Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.


I'll take that as a 'no', then.


2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.


I certainly do care about the quality of my system.


No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
times.


No, I didn't say that. However, if you're going to simply lie about what I've written,
you'll make it back into my killfile that much faster.


That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound.


You don?t mean ?includes good sound?. You mean ?regardless of how it sounds?.
You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.


I didn't audition in, true. But of course
if it had sounded broken to me when I heard it at home, I'd have
returned it. If DPL II hadn't functioned I'd have returned it. If the
ilink and USB inputs hadn't worked I'd have returned it. Etc.


I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
different ways. I?ve listened to a lot of different brands and I?ve owned a
couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It?s not
at all difficult to hear differences among them.


Those 'differences' tend to amount to differences in ability to power different
loads at different levels before clipping. They don't tend to be
intrinsic differences about sound quality (ie, at matched levels, below clipping).

However, there's a few thousand dollars waiting for you, if you can
prove I'm wrong by demonstarting your ability to distinguish such amps.
Are you brave enough to claim it? I suspect not. You're a miserable
tinpot coward, generalissimo.

And of course, you *haven't* listened to the 56txi (which isn't considered
part of a 'low end' line by audiophile mags, including Stereophile),
nor, if you did, would your anecdotal reportage about its sound be worth
the pixels you wasted on it -- even if your review was positive.

But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
mail-ordered. You are a robot.


Clearly, robots are smarter than 'normals'. ;

Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.


Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
they?re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn?t know any of
this because you didn?t bother to find out.


Actually, I did quite a bit of research to find this out.
I certainly don't claim complete 'interchangeability' in all dimenstions
of quality -- some are *built* better than others, for sure, and are likely to last longer;
some have more sophisticated features than others, etc -- but I'm rather
confident that the evidence points to *intrinsic differences in sound*
being rather a non-issue.

Then again, you can ask people who *have* had direct DBT experience
with amps even you would have to admit are 'high end'. Their
experience seems to contradict yours.

The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
store is ?robot?. That?s you, Sillybot.


'Robot, robot , robot' -- gracious,
*you* look like the one stuck in a loop, General G.

In-store audition for solid state gear would be fine, *if* one could
be sure to do it double blind , level-matched, with all other
gear the same. Lacking that, one might just as well buy without
audition. Nothing unreasonable about that. Of course, make
sure you have a money-back return guarantee either way.

In-store audition of speakers, even 'blind', would not likely
predict how the speakers would sound in one's own home, except
as regards gross differences (e.g. full-range vs satellite)
-- certainly not at the resolution that appears to matter to
'audiophiles', where 'subtle nuances' are everything.



Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?


Hey, that?s better than low-end. I?ll bet it sounds decent.


That's a good bet, but not for the reasons you think.

BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don?t hear something is
idiotic. You da ?bot!


If I *did* make such a demand (and I haven't), it'd surely be no
more idiotic that your own spittle-flecked contributions to the
newsgroups.


Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."


Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.


Sorry, general, but I happened upon Fremer's review long after I bought the gear (and btw,
he's talking abotu a different model, the 49tx). So it couldn't have
influenced me. However, a review that did
was the one in Sound & Vision of the 59txi, which described its
ilink capabilities and room correction features. I suspect David Ranada,
who did that review, would take the high quality of the sound as a given,
as he is an objectivist -- but they also helpfully included bench test
info to back that up.

So, again, my buying behavior is quite consistent with my recommendations,
general. So why the call to arms?


N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


Hardly?.
You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I?m as pecunious as
anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.


So, you're as pecunious as anybody?
Why, then, someone who is admittedly pecunious, would use that as a pejorative,
or assume its a sign of *penury*, is admittedly a question even my robot logic can't answer.
Unless it's that you're simply a *miserable creep*.


3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)


These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.


But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
separate preamp would be? If so, you?re the most ignorant robot ever.


Do you foolishly believe that preamps are likely to sound different
when auditioned with the proper controls in place? Permission to
disagree, SIR! Where's the evidence? Your own experience with
blind comparisons of preamps, perhaps?

The fact is, the supposed 'superiority' of high-end separates
may sometimes be measurable, sometimes audible, sometimes neither.


If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.


0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!


Garbage in, garbage out. ;


But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.


This is truly twisted. You?re a pervbot.


If reasoning annoys you, it's *got* to be good, clean fun.


I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
cost a few bucks, but it?ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.


Lacking any real arguments, you do seem to rely on your endless supply of bile
for 'rebuttals'. And I suppose that had to come from somewhere...


4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?


Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.



Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.


But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?


I made reasonable predictions that it would sound just fine, that its features
would be as advertised, and that it would look the way it did in the
photos. Wow, lucky me, I was right!

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.


You don?t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.


Human being, myself included, are fallible. Some of them are smart and
realize this. Others pretend it's not true or that it doesn't matter.
Sad.


--

-S


  #31   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sillybot, did you get an Emotion Chip? How daring. ;-)

his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in.


Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.


Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
the most tenuous grasp of logic.


Actually, you feel that. You can look up "emotion" in any dictionary, in
case your programming didn't cover it.

Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.


The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
Enjoy yourselves.


What do you think of this, Silly: "Existence exists." Is that a good
summary by a clever person or a fatuous copout by a lazy jackass?




  #32   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
because
the listener *heard* them as different.

The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.


I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
for bragging about his high-priced amps.


BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."


Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
outcome ;


No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the Pioneer/Krell party trick.

And the Zip tests proved... zip.

Stephen
  #33   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109
wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or
setting.

Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer
receiver.

You would claim that no, really, they *were*
different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might
be severely attenuated.


I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who
had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps.


BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch
experience."


Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
outcome ;


No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the
Pioneer/Krell party trick.

And the Zip tests proved... zip.


Actually they proved quite a bit about Zippy's lack of
honesty and general lack of character.


  #34   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default



This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
gripes about Science versus The Rest.

I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
still saying that this may not actually be true.

Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
undserstanding it?

Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
instances, merely observing a situation changes it. You could extrapolate
this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
to do. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
"What the bleep do we know").

And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.



Gareth.




  #35   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering




And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.




  #36   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.


You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.



You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible?


Gareth.






Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering




And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.



  #37   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
There is a difference, you know.

d
  #38   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
There is a difference, you know.

d




OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you
realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time
actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this
happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.

Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered
by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results.
Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long
period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips.
But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and
you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.


There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all,
other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count.




Gareth.


  #39   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

And there's more, like the observations that one particle
can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large
distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of
fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a
particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.


Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that
simple explanations are more likely to be correct.

When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and
hypothesize new scientific discoveries to explain things
that you perceive, which are easy to show are just audible
illusions, this should be a wake up call.


  #40   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on
the motorway and you realise that you have no
recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening
then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of
that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you
concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide
to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you
will check out your conciousness and see what is
happening. Only you can't because the very act of
attempting to carry out this test alters your
conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.


What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having
routine blackouts while driving, pardon me if I want to be
driving some place else.


 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"