A Audio and hi-fi forum. AudioBanter

Go Back   Home » AudioBanter forum » rec.audio » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupie Sillyborg on audio purchases



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 16th 05, 03:09 PM
George Middius
external usenet poster
 
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.

Ads
  #2  
Old September 19th 05, 02:42 PM
Gareth Magennis
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 19th 05, 05:11 PM
George M. Middius
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 19th 05, 11:10 PM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 19th 05, 11:15 PM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 19th 05, 11:42 PM
George M. Middius
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 20th 05, 02:03 AM
Steven Sullivan
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 20th 05, 02:36 AM
Arny Krueger
external usenet poster
 
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  
Old September 20th 05, 09:32 AM
Gareth Magennis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #10  
Old September 20th 05, 09:55 AM
Gareth Magennis
external usenet poster
 
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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
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 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AudioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.