B&D wrote:
On 12/7/04 7:47 PM, in article , "Billy
Shears" wrote:

In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with
the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause
them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a
big incentive for some of these folks but one million?

I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so
poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting
anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of
participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge.

Logically, you are 100% correct. Nothing except that no one taking
Randi up on it.

But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and
number of people he can get and keep the attention of.

He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth,
just its less capable cousin "debunking."

Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
the other (myth) into his belief system.
The same has been done by the priests and politicians and this is what
enables crusades, terrorism and other atrocities around the world.
We need a fresh and uncluttered approach to audio. I am very happy that the
majority of this group seems to have started anew on this way. Scepticism, a
clear mind and a relaxed attitude will benefit gathering personal
experiences, which do not rely on somebody elses preachings. The intentions
of these preachers might not be what they pretend to convey.
It is not that only those poor in spirit or intelligence fall into the many
pits set up by fake prophets, but also educated and well trained engineers,
as can be seen in our group.
The example given on Randis site have really changed my attitude about
Stereophile and I now regard the whole mag as controlled by the industy and
not by an enquiring spirit about music reproduction. Mr. Atkinsons
unsensible replies have done the rest.
Even if Randi himself has constraints to observe, I fully support his
broadside attack against Stereophile.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

"But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and number
of
people he can get and keep the attention of.

He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth, just its
less capable cousin "debunking.""

The first above can have substituted hi fi mags for randi. There is one
school in the philosophy that says we don't "prove" anything because the
next instance might be the theory breaker. Instead in science we hold a
theory as long as we fail to disprove it. Which puts "debunk" as the
center piece of science. Those who care about audio hold that wire etc.
can make a difference as long as we fail to disprove it by example, but in
the main the research to jeopardize the notion is avoided like the hiv
virus.

Billy Shears wrote:
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump
at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some
of these folks but one million?

I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with
him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous
"million-dollar" challenge.

What puzzles me is why such a challenge would even be possible. IMO IF the
differences in question WERE real why haven't the proponents ALREADY produced
replicable experiments showing that they are? Many of these so-called
differences have been postulated for years, its not as though its something new
here.

IMO the reason that nobody is willing to take such a challenge is because the
ones who have made a good faith effort to verify them have already discovered
the truth and all the rest are either fully aware that imagined sound cannot be
replicated without bias or are just not sure enough of themselves to put it on
the line because it is safer to debate them.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to
jump
at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for
some
of these folks but one million?

I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do
with
him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his
fabulous
"million-dollar" challenge.

Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize
money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it.
Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will
ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money.
The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it,
regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations
they come up with.


Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
our own subjective listening.)

On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
the other (myth) into his belief system.

While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
that he does this....

Harry Lavo wrote:

Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
our own subjective listening.)

To be a critic is to be an enemy?

That's no less contemptuous, if either is.

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Michael McKelvy" wrote:

I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the
ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to
jump
at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for
some
of these folks but one million?

I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly
that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do
with
him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his
fabulous
"million-dollar" challenge.

Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize
money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it.
Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will
ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money.
The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it,
regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations
they come up with.


Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the
hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our
own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to
instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on
our own subjective listening.)

Not really, although I was not the one you should respond to. I use
Self's definition of subjectivist, and I would guess that Mr. McKelvy
does, too.

B&D wrote:

On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
the other (myth) into his belief system.

While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
that he does this....

And exactly where has any high-end advocate EVER admitted they were wrong about
any claim? All they ever do is reject suggestions of experiments to show the
claims are even audible and then argue forever about how everybody is
mindlessly discounting their reports.

There's a word for that, of which, I'm sure you all know. The rest of us simply
restrain ourselves to acoustically verifyable differences.

Nousaine wrote:
B&D wrote:

On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so
called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in
authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or
the other (myth) into his belief system.

While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also
think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or
didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence
that he does this....

And exactly where has any high-end advocate EVER admitted they were wrong about
any claim?

Tellig and Armor-All -- but I think there, the admission was that
the stuff would damage your CDs; not sure he ever said it didn't
improve the sound.

I note that now he's touting an off-the-shelf Sony discman as having
amazing sound, like he did the Radio Shack portable years ago.
/me shakes head



--
-S
Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere.