Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

"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.


OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
knowledge of which cable he is listening to.

That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.

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



Gareth Magennis said:

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.


You're absolutely right, except that we do know what happens and why the
"tests" are not valid for consumers. The difference is psychological.
Different mindsets for human-style listening vs. lab-rat "tests".

There's another point about the two mindsets that's not so obvious: The
nerds can't separate the consumer viewpoint from the technician viewpoint.
They believe the DBT protocol is inherently better for everybody. In
reality it's only better for those who need it -- i.e. technicians. A
low-level characteristic of a system's performance may not register in
short-term listening sessions, but it can (and does) become apparent over
the long term. Humans are not robots; our brains filter information for
us. When we listen, we do so for pleasure, and that's what our brains
report. When we become accustomed to the sound of a system, we then start
to refine our impressions. We learn as we go. Robots don't do that, of
course -- they're fully programmed when they're "born".

The 'borgs refuse to acknowledge that using a tool the way you want to use
it is its best and highest purpose.




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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
wrote:

"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.


This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
doesn't happen?

There is a difference, you know.


How do you know that there is a difference in the total
absence of reliable evidence?


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


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"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.



I have heard of Mr Occam and his shaving device, and I am inclined to agree
with you. However, I lean more towards the idea that it is quite possible
we have been barking up the wrong tree all this time and the simple
explanation is that everything we think we know is wrong, because one, some
or all of the fundamental principles we hold so dear are wrong. The kind of
things I have mentioned in previous posts like Matter arising from Mind and
not the other way round, time not being at all what we think it is, reality
being illusory, Britney Spears being a better singer than Christina
Aguilera, Collective Conciousness meaning we are all part of some greater
being like leaves are part of a tree, hell, maybe even a God exists. And of
course other ideas and concepts that we just could not understand right now.

See, the Quantum Mechanics thing seems to be finding little things like mind
actually does affect matter and that things don't have to be near other
things to affect them or even to be part of them. Maybe we have
overcomplicated things enormously - maybe a paradigm leap in awareness would
bring everything down to the really simple level that it actually is. Can't
wait.


Gareth.


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
wrote:

"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.


This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
doesn't happen?

You already know the answer to that. If the event is improbable, then the
only way to settle the matter is to demonstrate that it happens, waiting
for it not to happen for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.

There is a difference, you know.


How do you know that there is a difference in the total
absence of reliable evidence?


Evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence?

I will stick with the good Friar William to make my choice there.

d


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

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.


You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road.



Gareth.


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


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

"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.


OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
knowledge of which cable he is listening to.

That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.

d



Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
do.


Gareth.


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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
Magennis wrote:


But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
is merely absent.


This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that
it doesn't happen?


You already know the answer to that. If the event is
improbable, then the only way to settle the matter is to
demonstrate that it happens, waiting for it not to happen
for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.


....and that puts us exactly where we are today.

;-)


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

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...



OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
"can't you hear the difference? It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
him to turn his back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
which cable he is listening to.


That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
*audible* effects.


Actually I don't think that these types of short term
tests are valid at all.


I see no indication of short or long listening tests in
Don's example.

However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on
Don's example, and then you objecting to it.

I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the
objection is a straw man argument.


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
knowledge of which cable he is listening to.

That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.

d



Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
do.


Gareth.


No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem identifying his
differences in brief "can you hear it?" type tests when he knows which is
connected. He is also free to take just as long as he pleases when
unsighted.

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

d


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


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...



OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
"can't you hear the difference? It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
him to turn his back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
which cable he is listening to.


That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
*audible* effects.


Actually I don't think that these types of short term
tests are valid at all.


I see no indication of short or long listening tests in Don's example.

However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on Don's example, and
then you objecting to it.

I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the objection is a
straw man argument.



OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
so it is not clear what is really being tested here. The result may not be
just an indication of "audible effects" or the lack thereof. It could be
showing the subject is suddenly unable to hear them during the test, for
whatever reason. If I held a gun to your head and told you I would shoot
you unless you clearly identified whether this was Coke or Pepsi, do you not
think that would alter what is actually being tested, and your perception of
what the drink tastes like, and your memories of what Pepsi and Coke taste
like without these conditions? Then it would be a taste test under duress,
not a normal taste test and the results may well be very different from
those taken at home over seveal days.

A long term test in real world conditions, I believe, tends to lose these
erroneous conditions and tests whether there has been any permanent
improvement or change in perceived sound, or whether it makes you dance to
all your CD's or not.


Gareth.


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

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message



OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't
really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is
possible for a test like the above to alter the
circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained
previously, so it is not clear what is really being
tested here.


OK Gareth at this point you are backed way deep into a
corner. You're persisting that your favorite cables
absolutely positively do make a difference that can be
easily heard by anybody with good ears and a good system,
then you're clutching at straws when it comes to reasons why
that doesn't happen when listener bias is controlled by any
known means.



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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
wrote:
Actually I don't think that these types of short term
tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity
for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But
I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
talking about long term testing in their own homes. I
don't think there is much in common between the two
situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the
other, which I believe the scientific community is
trying to do.


Gareth.


No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem
identifying his differences in brief "can you hear it?"
type tests when he knows which is connected. He is also
free to take just as long as he pleases when unsighted.


I have to say, though, that I find that systems with
genuine differences tend to sound the same with
protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound
and puts it back together the way Inthink it should
sound.


You can get used to the most appalling crap if you
listen long enough.


I got a practical lesson in this at HE2005, in virtually
every room with SET amplifiers, and many others as well.

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
great but the speakers!!!! ;-(


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.


I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
  #55   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
great but the speakers!!!! ;-(


Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or
did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the
speakers?

d


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.


I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.


I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.


I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?

d
  #57   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...

"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?



It's not even totally unknown. Some work done by a group in Japan led by
Oohashi (
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content...spec=relevance )
found that short snippets of music did not allow enough time for an
emotional response by the brain to build (on average, this took 1.5-2
mins.). The difference in some of their tests was the difference between
"null" and "significantly different" on musical ratings.


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.


I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.


I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.


Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
it's an actual music clip.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.


I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?


You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?

OK. Here it is revised:

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:11 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.


I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.


Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
it's an actual music clip.


Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own that
is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.


I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?


You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?

OK. Here it is revised:

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
right to pull a nod and a wink to him.


If he replies to me in this fashion, rest assured I will.

d
  #60   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(


Speakers and pianos in the same room?


Yes, but the speaker demo room and the piano room were
separated by a partial partition.

What genius thought that one up?


really!

Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while
they used the speakers?


none in sight, and I visited the room several times, for a
hors-d'oerves check.




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



Gareth Magennis tries to have a human-style conversation with the
Krooborg.

Actually I don't think that these types of short term
tests are valid at all.


lying
straw man


OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
so it is not clear what is really being tested here.


You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time.




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

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message



You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
waste of time.


In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius
wastes his time with those crazy people, by the bucketload.


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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:25:52 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

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.


So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
of them?

--

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



The Krooborg trashes his christian "morality" whenever it's convenient. Like
now, for example.

You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
waste of time.


In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy.


Well, not exactly, Arnii. There's just you, the King of Mt. Crazy. Among that
impoverished group of apologists you kling to like a barnakle, there's a couple
of maladjusted cranks and a passel of class warriors. But no other crazies.

You could see a shrink, you know. Maybe they have meds that would help you.
Unless you're afraid the psychiatrists are part of the anti-Krooger plot, of
course. ;-)

  #65   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton said:

So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
of them?



They glow so nice ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005


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

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

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.


So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
of them?


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nice of you to show how your
reasoning is so skewed.

What I'm saying is that I could fool YOU in just the same way. I could
tell you that you were listening to your own Krell and substitute an
SET that you claimed was inferior and I bet you a dollar to a doughnut
that you'd buy it hook, line and sinker.
  #67   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:


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.


Actaully, science 'says' that too. However, it requires that that you
demonstrate *why* it may not actually be true. For any claim of
'truth' for science, there's a line -- more likely a network -- of
repeatable evidence to back up *this* explanation and not *that* one.
Networks of evidence are not equally strong for *all*
explanations, except in the very early stages of an investigation.

Where is the network of evidence for your claims And how does
it compare in strength to the network of evidence for, say,
the inherent fallibility of human perception?


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.


Well, that's not true -- of course there's a force 'making' them move.

But by all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence and testable hypotheses for your claims.

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?


By all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence for your 'what-ifs', and testable hypotheses.

Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
instances, merely observing a situation changes it.


This occurs at sub-atomic levels. At 'macro' levels it's swamped by
'noise'.


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.


*You* could make that extrapolation from quantum physics, but it's
certainly not something that an actual physicist would do.
Because they understand what they're talking about.

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").


A film funded by, and serving a propaganda for, some rather kooky religious
characters.

If you take this, and books liek 'The Tao of Physics' as indicators of
what the evidence actually says, then it's no wonder your ideas are so
wooly.

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.


Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



--

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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote in message



You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
waste of time.


In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius
wastes his time with those crazy people, by the
bucketload.


I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance
itself as far as possible from Mr. Middius.


Agreed - its a unilateral arrangement.

BTW, I think we've just seen another example of that.

AFAIK there has been exactly one post from Middius on the
new Stereophile conferences.


  #69   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
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.


You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road.


"At least" as far as you can remember.


  #70   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default




Sillybot is still feeling the sting.

I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance itself
as far as possible from Mr. Middius.


LOL! How much do you want to bet on that, Silly? I can wait until you grow up
and get a real job. ;-)



  #71   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dave weil wrote:
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.


On Sept. 20, 11.25am. dave weil said
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

You hit the nail on the head. In fact the experiment you
suggest was already performed. ( see my reply to Mr. Magennis today).
In a blind comparison of four loudspeakers two of which
had large dips and peaks in the frequency curve large majority of the
nearly 300 panelists failed to distinguish the good from the bad. But
the same majority preferred the smooth frequency speakers to the
inferior ones when not bothered with trying to distinguish them.
So much for these homegrown, selfnominated
"scientists'" two articles of belief.:
1) "You must be able to distinguish before you can prefer"
2) " Our beloved test shows that you can not tell the amps. preamps,
cables, cd players, and dacs from each other because the differences
either don't exist or are very "subtle". ("subtle" means:
whatever he can't hear).
Ah, they say but the loudspeakers are different- any
fool can tell the difference. Well, Sean Olive found well over 200
fools who could not.
What I find refreshing is that in your posting you
bring the argument down to earth, where it belongs.
The ABX cultists just love theoretical
speculations- the more abstruse the better.
It does not matter that they betray (like Sullivan
talking about "real" and *unreal* perceptions) their ignorance of
the last three millennia of perennial philosophical argument about the
relation of human perceptions to the "reality" of the material
world. It is all simple to them because they read one or two undergrad
textbooks
What they do not like is being challenged to show
one single -publishable reference to experimental validation of their
beloved "test"- a test in which the verdict was: "Yes the panel
distinguished the components from each other". They can not because
when ABXing it all sounds the same.
As they have no answer they either grow silent in
a huff, or talk about "kill-files" like Mr. Sullivan, or , reach
for their inner obscene hooligan as you'll know who.
Ludovic Mirabel


________

  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

Bye,

--
. I agree with you. The web exchange of off- the- top- of- the= head speculations has little to do with audio.

But my reasons for saying it are diametrically different. It
is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we
know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to
zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less
because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the
brain. Do you?
Quite, quite, sound means waves that enter the ear. From
then on the labyrinth and the cochlea and the acoustic nerve and the
acoustic brain centres in the temporal lobe cortex and the countless
synapses to the frontal cortex and other connexions we have yet to
learn about get to work on it..
And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the
complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How
does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes?
There is more complexity under the heavens than your
textbooks had an inkling of.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #73   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
great but the speakers!!!! ;-(


Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or
did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the
speakers?

d


The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers are working
correctly. The cabinet on the other hand......
  #74   Report Post  
Denis Sbragion
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Ludovic,

wrote in
oups.com:

is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we
know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to
zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less
because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the
brain. Do you?

....

just a little, but this is interesting only after the sound has entered
our ear and has been converted to a neurological signal. I'm much more
concerned about the accuracy of the sound, with respect to what's on the
record, just before it enters our ear.
It's true that knowing what happens after the ear entrance is
helpful when you have to make decision between different tradeoffs,
because clearly you can decide which tradeoff is better for our
perception. BTW I'm quite convinced that the technology is now mature
enough to try to avoid any tradeoff at all, or at least to get really
close to this ideal situation.
Once this has been achieved you no longer have to worry about what
happens afterward, because it happens exactly what happens when you are
exposed to the sound that is "coded" on the record. Once this has been
achieved it's the artist task to create records that satisfy our ear.

And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the
complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How
does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes?
There is more complexity under the heavens than your
textbooks had an inkling of.


I'm not interested into understanding how our brain tell the difference
between this sort of things. I just want the sound on the record
reproduced with as much accuracy as possible just before it enters our
sense. After that it's the ear and brain job, and I'm pretty confident
that it will do it pretty well.

Bye,

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

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.


Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
Try and think just a little outside the box, please.


Gareth.




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

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.


Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist.

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
Try and think just a little outside the box, please.


Columbus wasn't a scientist - he was a Christian.

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


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.


Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the
scientist.



Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists with the same
brush. What I should be saying is "People with the attitude of Mr
Sullivan....... "



Gareth.


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

Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own
that
is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.


Yes, if you keep triggering a short vocal sample for instance, it very
quickly takes on a very non-human timbre. (Dance Music uses this for
effect). We never hear identical repeats in the real world.


Gareth.


  #79   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.


Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.


This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference
between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded
one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that
things we do not yet understand may be possible.


Wrong. Gareth, you seem to think that particle physics is
full of unknowns and speculation, and that there have been
no real-world experiments at all.

Read again the above paragraph. You are calling
unquestionable logic fantasy.


Gareth your idea of "unquestionable logic" makes religious
belief look like factual certainty.

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation
with Christopher Columbus and tried to explain to him how
you talked to someone on the other side of the world on
your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face.


You really just don't know about that, do you Gareth? I
suspect that with a proper foundation of experiences,
Columbus would accept the facts and get on with his life. He
seems to have been a fairly flexible fellow.

To get him to understand you would have to
start with explaining electricity and then radio.


Not at all. A few simple demos would suffice. Maybe we'd
start out with making a cellphone call while we were
face-to-face and just have the demonstrators walk further
and further apart. At some point it wouldn't be a leap of
faith for Columbus to believe that it was now easy to speak
over long distances.


Chances are the only way he could visualise these sorts
of technology would be to think of them as some kind of
"magic" or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the
same attitude as yourself. Try and think just a little
outside the box, please.


I think you ought to take your own advice, Gareth. Your idea
of Science seems to be trapped in a tiny little box.


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

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
Magennis wrote:
This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference
between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded
one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that
things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read
again the above paragraph. You are calling
unquestionable logic fantasy.


Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than
this? It is the scientist who not only imagines, but
creates the new possible. It is the religious mindset
that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and
screaming by the scientist.



Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists
with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People
with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... "


Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is that
he probably has a more relevant set of educational and
life's experiences than you do, Gareth.


 
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 06:53 PM.

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"