Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#601
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:fPPQe.98990$Ep.17739@lakeread02... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: When 'experts' submit articles to journals, they are not only edited but also peer-reviewed. Stereophile is a consumer oriented magazine. It is not, and is not meant to be, a scientific journal. Peer review does not apply to its writers. How about a requirement for expertise in the field? One point would be to have the writer actually pay a percentage of the cost of the review samples. My criticism of SP is that we, the consumers, have to pay for this stuff, while the writer gets it free. A writer might pay more attention to cost/benefit issues in the 'real world' if he/she weren't reviewing 'free samples' all the time. To them, these are free toys to play with, so sure, they are all nice things to have scattered around the house. You can't charge them more than they get for the article. And I don't think writers get to keep the stuff... do they? I hope not. your problem with SP is that they don't use DBT's in an attempt to limit preconceptions. thats a minor knit.. that whole review language thing of describing sound never caught on with me. Half the time I can't tell WTF they're talking about. That and the fact you have to really read between the lines to pick a positive review from a neutral one. Frankly, reading some of the subjective prose is just as painful as a trip to a pushy sales shop. My problem is that the reviewers sometimes seem to assume that the readers have unlimited resources. Reading about a $20,000 amp or $10,000 cd player is interesting, but I'll never own one. Never know. I saw a 16K TT go for under 5K on audiogon recently. But AFAIAC... the bigger the price tag the more interesting the DBT. Let's take up Howard's cause and set upper price limits on what should be reviewed! (duh, I'm being facetious here) But, for different reasons. Not that they all sound the same, but how can we get the best possible sound without mortgaging the estate? Buy used? An entire really good stereo set up shouldn't cost any more than $20,000 for everything. Kind of arbitrary. My main system is a lot less than that on used prices. Now that I think about it... its less than my surround system and my current main speakers are less expensive than my old ones now in my surround. I've heard more expensive systems I've liked less and less expensive systems I could like just as much. I don't like judging stereos by their list price. It doesn't correlate all that much with my pleasure factor. But if somebody wants to drop some MBL 101s on my doorstep... I'd like to check 'em out. Only thing stopping me is the price tag and no local dealers. ScottW |
#602
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message oups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: Arny, for one, purposefully distorts what other people are saying, thus a meaningful discussion with him is just not possible. Arny isn't the only one. Give me a break, you've got Middius myopia. He is by far the worst, and I said "for one"' Not IMO. See effective purposeful distortion requires some intellect. Arny's blatant butchering at times is just too obvious to have any real effect. What can he accomplish when everyone but Mike is able to see what's going on? Its the subtle *******s you have to watch. ScottW |
#603
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... ScottW wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-) After ripping McKelvy a new one you just opened the door to pandora's box and threw yourself in. Yes, it was a cheap shot, but you shouldn't let your frustration drive your actions. I am tired of Arny Krueger throwing out such unsubtantiated accusations. I repeat, I have never attacked Mr. Krueger's children, his wife, or his religious beliefs. All I have done, until now. like Harry Lavo, is to publicly disagree with Mr. Krueger's beliefs on audio matters, something for which he apparently will never forgive me. :-( My advice.. chill out dude. The more Arny goes off into these wacko accusations the less rational he appears. The thing that drives me nuts with Arny being the prime representative of the objectivist camp is that he is too friggin loony to formulate a consistent cogent argument. Too bad too. It isn't all that big a deal. ScottW |
#604
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Scooter, I know you're semiliterate at best, but you might try a Cliff's Notes version of Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet, to be specific. Neither. My complaint is that you state that George stated that SP writers are not experts, though he said no such thing. and here I thought I was being quite blatantly sarcastic. You may have thought that, but don't you think it odd that nobody else perceived it? Maybe you can elucidate the reasoning that we all missed. I didn't want to say... but you all must have your panties twisted into some serious wad and the chafe is killing you. That's the only possible explanation. On the meta level, there's a recurring issue of you misunderstanding what's obvious to the rest of us, or of nobody understanding what you meant. I'm sorry... it's just so damned hard to dwell at this mundane level of technical and logical lunacy. I know you're a fully formed adult, so you're stuck with your limitations, whatever they might be. Star pilot. But recognizing them would make you less pugnacious. Not my problem. Frankly, I'd rather be ignored than shackled into your domain. ScottW |
#605
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message " wrote in message nk.net... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud. Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences were undetected? It would have to include an element of deception. ScottW |
#606
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. Got it? ScottW |
#607
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"? Nope. No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said "coffee" and "alcohol." Both of which are fine beverages in the appropriate contexts. This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's mouth. You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr. Krueger. You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I merely felt your analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger. Here's a friendly suggestion John, if your problem is that you felt the analogy was over-stretched, try saying so without resorting to the ethically questionable debating trade practice of putting made-up words in my mouth. If it bothers you that much, substitute "coffee" and "alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in my statement above (whichever way round you feel appropriate). You seem to be missing the point Atkinson, which you must to in order to pursue the travesty of an equipment testing procedure that Stereophile seems to have relied on for its now-flagging commercial success. Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's head. Your metaphor, your foot, so to speak. I think he got my point just fine. If it went over someone's head, I would point to the person who can't quote it properly, one who confused a declaration with a question. |
#608
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with you. Scotty. |
#609
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question. A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be. |
#610
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question. No it's a question with a so-called hidden meaning. There was nothing hidden in my declaration. I think Atkinson is at the core of it struggling with the strength of my presentation of the advantages of bias-controlled listening tests. It's easy to make a strong presentation for a strong concept, and a strong tool. A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be. Yet another question with a hidden meaning. It functions like a declaration on some level, but first and foremost it's a question. |
#611
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02... " wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-) Norm Strong |
#612
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with you. Scotty. I am blessed. and your are unable to respond to my point. "What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences were undetected? It would have to include an element of deception. " ScottW |
#613
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02... " wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-) So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted. That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that would be my choice. DBT is the time waster. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#614
|
|||
|
|||
Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02... " wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-) So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted. That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that would be my choice. DBT is the time waster. Exactly, As an individual making your own choice... you get to choose what works for you. That's completely different than setting out to prove something to someone other than yourself. You need to teach them probability before you can do that . ScottW |
#615
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this, it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that he agrees with this. Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify sighted listening. Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. Your mind-reading abilities aside, Mr. McKelvy, no I don't "know" this. Willful ignorance is no excuse. All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that _in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against sighted listening. Another lie. No, not a lie at all, Mr. McKelvy. Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Except he failed to make this subtle distinction at the debate. Perhaps you'd better let Mr. Krueger take a glance at your postings before you post them, to make sure you and he are on the same page. The changes from a blind comparison are in favor of detection of subtle differnces, consequently you should be in favor of them. |
#616
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted. Given how nice of a guy you've been over the years Art, I think that would be a very good thing for you to do. ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
English lesson for Arnii Krooborg | Audio Opinions | |||
Lesson from "Meet the Press" | Audio Opinions | |||
Lesson Learned | Pro Audio |