Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, wrote: I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing products in the same way I listen to them. Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone, and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening blind. I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on "black boxes" or equipment behind screens. Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record, that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method of comparing sound affects sensitivity. I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available evidence supports that. Fine. Mike P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: " wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ... snip If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do so on your time and your dime. The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers in the filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound perception. They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and they know they can't get them from sighted lsitening. Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans? Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't you. Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many contries, including Great Britain and the United States. Was JJ's work at AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, wrote: I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing products in the same way I listen to them. Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone, and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening blind. I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on "black boxes" or equipment behind screens. Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record, that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method of comparing sound affects sensitivity. I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available evidence supports that. Fine. Mike P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? Mike, not to the best of my knowledge. But you are right about us being beat over the head as being against blind testing (because it is a useful bogeyman) while the real objection has been that short-snippet, quick-switching, comparative testing a la abx are potentially and inherently anti-musical. The objectivists here and on other newsgroups have no real answer to the potential problem that you, I, Mark, and others have raised...their world can only make sense if such complicating factors (that just happend to scream out for a validation test) are completely ignored. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 22:18:51 GMT, wrote: wrote: (Irrelevancies snipped) AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in performance. Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for. Typical Leica snob attitude, ignoring the basic fact that the serious players, Nikon and Canon, have massive R&D departments, and turn out lenses which are far beyond the capability of a tiny 'garden shed' operation like Leitz. Unless of course you count the 'Leica' lenses used on Panasonic digital cameras.................... But the lenses they COULD make are not the lenses they DO make. It's simply not possible to make a lens that sells for $400 equal to one that sells for $2400, when the glass itself of the higher-priced lens costs $1000! Leica's glass and mechanical perfection cannot be matched at a lower price point. It's not physically possible. Canon or Nikon could not sell their lenses at Leica price points. Anybody COULD make Leica-quality lenses IF they used Leica-quality materials and designs, but...they DON'T. If they did, they'd cost about the same. Considering what a lot of high-end audio gear costs, Leica stuff is a bargain. Indeed, a quite recent AP test noted that the new Canon 60mm f2.8 macro lens was essentially perfect, and was the best lens that the reviewer had ever tested. Check out the 100mm APO-Marco-Elmarit-R. It's essentially perfect (diffraction-limited). http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...kolumne/12.pdf I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my own satisfaction and that of others. You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears. You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash. How would you know? Your audio comparisons are analogous to comparing lenses which have been smeared with vaseline. Do I detect an insult there? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?" How often has it been done standing on the right foot while the left hand is embedded up to the wrist in cheese doodles? Seriously, the only question is not knowing,ie. blind testing, and all this other mental tap dancing irrelevant because no restraints otherwise are required. As mentioned, testing has been done with the only control being a cloth placed over connections to implement blindness, the results were obvious. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 11 Sep 2005 22:29:13 GMT, "Gary Vander Schel" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote: snip Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK.......... Really? Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it *does* make a difference. If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell me that I'm wasting my money? I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising. I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane petrol. http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/ Perhaps you should try reading some modern literature on the subject. Most European cars have their power outputs quoted for 98RON fuel, the equivalent of your 93, and certainly do produce less power with lower octane fuel. Basically, the modern engine management system sets up the engine to give best results with whatever fuel is in the tank. My own car (Audi A3 3.2) has a compression ratio of 11.3:1, and definitely does benefit from the best fuel I can find. Similarly, turbocharged engines like that In my wife's TT will adjust boost levels to suit the available fuel and atmospheric conditions. -- Thanks for the clarification. I agree that using fuel with the octane rating that meets (not exceeds) the manufacturer's recommendation is appropriate. The variable timing capabilities of modern engine management systems will allow it to run on lower octane w/ no knock (which apparently you've done). Have you tried using fuel w/ an octane rating exceeding 98 RON? OTOH, my wife's '97 MX-5 had a 15-20% drop in kpl/mpg when using higher octane fuel than recommended by the manufacturer (probably due to the lower volatility of high octane fuels). .. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human hearing. "We"? What do you mean, "we"? *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued denial will not alter this most obvious fact. What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. I have posted links to discussions of what an 'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them. (Moderator: how does this post get through?) [Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ] You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and you know it. Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*. Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually stepped up to the plate. You're beginning to bore me. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. Mark Levinson? Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear differences among transports with that dog! I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded quite beautiful. So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room. So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are permitted to spend on their equipment? Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream' Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'..................... Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance, and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but redesigns. Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house. They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs. Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4 (Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about 1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation 19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made by anyone. But all this took time. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori. I don't remember you...sitting next to me. I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told. You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your belief. Oh, is that so? |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables, which definitely *are* a waste of money? According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS? No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. It is possible to induce halucinations through sleep deprivation: http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...b=5&o=0&fpart= It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening comparisons are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need for constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that they should be. So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear. I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'. You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field. This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often you repeat it. Proof? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. We have gone over this before. No-one in philosophy or any science would call listening to cables and reporting audible differences 'making an extraordinary claim'. They would if they knew the science behind cables and that such a result is impossible for very well understood reasons. I am not claiming that the cables violate any laws of nature. Yes you are. The class of all things natural exceeds the class of all things measurable. An 'extraordinary claim' violates some commonly-accepted truth of nature (e.g., once men die, they don't come back to life), or invokes some wild explanation (aliens from outer space) that assumes facts not in evidence. Aliens cannot be used to explain your 'abduction' because the existence of aliens is itself unsupported and remotely unlikely. You cannot use something even less-well established to prove something that is highly dubious itself. Claiming to hear differences in aduo cables, amps, or CD players is not by any stretch of the imagination 'making an extraordinary claim'. Claiming that something impossible happened is an extraordinary claim, to reasonable people. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans? Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't you. Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and shakers'. Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many contries, including Great Britain and the United States. Nice sidestep, Harry........... Was JJ's work at AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed. Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you demonstrate that it wasn't? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human hearing. "We"? What do you mean, "we"? Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people. *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued denial will not alter this most obvious fact. What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned? Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*. Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually stepped up to the plate. You're beginning to bore me. Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon? I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori. I don't remember you...sitting next to me. Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws. You can, of course, continue to claim that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear must be real because you really believe it is, or other such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason, but from here on I intend to do no more than just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton, Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments. Your posts will be filed accordingly. -- -S |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs and telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and psychological comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic, and have found they can validate differences when a conventional short-snippet test resulted in a "null". Please list them. Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama, and Hiroshi Shibasaki Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans? Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't you. Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and shakers'. Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many contries, including Great Britain and the United States. Nice sidestep, Harry........... Was JJ's work at AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed. Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Peer-reviewed and accepted as sound research is one thing, Stewart. Coorroborated is another. I said the research was reviewed and accepted for publication. I didn't say it had yet been corroborated. The corroboration work is proceeding as we write, I believe. Corroboration of complex research requiring special facilities and equipment is not a "quick and easy" job. I have posted this fact several times on various forums. Your reply is simply so much smoke. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are permitted to spend on their equipment? False claim, nobody has said any such thing. What has been said is, that it is foolish to waste money on expensive cables, since they are incapable of sounding different from normally priced ones. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. The reason is to make sure that it's your ears alone being used to make the determination. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori. I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told. Actually that's a definition of faith. You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your belief. Oh, is that so? Yes. What would make you so hesitant, based on all the research, that you shouldn't try doing the comparison blind? Bottom line, there is no such thing as cable sound difference if the cables are of any decent quality. Any claim to the contrary, is an extraordinary one and is out of synch with everything known about the nature of hearing and the properties of wire. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you demonstrate that it wasn't? Why do I have to demonstrate it to anybody? Are you the audio purchase police? You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human hearing. "We"? What do you mean, "we"? Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people. Oh, really? Were they sitting next to me? I don't think so! *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued denial will not alter this most obvious fact. What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to hear differences among amps, CD players, and cables, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned? What have tey learned about what I can hear in my room? Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*. Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually stepped up to the plate. You're beginning to bore me. Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon? This group is specifically set up to discuss high-end audio. You're not doing that. You're trying to say there is no such thing as high-end audio. I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori. I don't remember you...sitting next to me. Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws. You cannot 'argue' facts out of existence. I'll trust my senses before I'll trust someone in a discussion group. You can, of course, continue to claim that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear must be real because you really believe it is, or other such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason, but from here on I intend to do no more than just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton, Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments. Your posts will be filed accordingly. -- -S |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this will be directly related to the prestige of the badge. You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human hearing. "We"? What do you mean, "we"? The accumulated body of human knowledge. Scientists and engineers, if you like. *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued denial will not alter this most obvious fact. What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart Pinkerton. Nor indeed by you - despite your vigorous assertiuons. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an 'extraordinary claim'. You say *everything* with great confidence. Little of it is actually true, however............... I have posted links to discussions of what an 'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them. Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? (Moderator: how does this post get through?) [Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ] LOL! :-) Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting 'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-) You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear. False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and you know it. Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*. Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually stepped up to the plate. You're beginning to bore me. Lack of response noted. Also, you're assuming that I care. It's pretty hard to find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end' player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream' players. Mark Levinson? Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear differences among transports with that dog! I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded quite beautiful. So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room. So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are permitted to spend on their equipment? I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply pointing out that it's a foolish indulgence - much like buying Leica gear. I will graciously permit you to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like. Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream' Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'..................... Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance, and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but redesigns. Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house. They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs. Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4 (Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about 1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation 19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made by anyone. I doubt that Zeiss, Canon or Nikon would agree with you, especially given the outstanding quality of the 1978 Nikon 20mm f4 - but thanks for finally admitting that Leitz bought in lens designs because they had less design ability than Zeiss or Schneider. But all this took time. Bascically, you know that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up, there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected? Why do you not trust your ears alone? I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system, because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully conducted. Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori. I don't remember you...sitting next to me. No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and hence worthless. I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told. You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your belief. Oh, is that so? Yes, it is so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
[Moderator note: No more camera lens discussion please. -- deb ]
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I have posted links to discussions of what an 'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them. Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case with audio products. There are many people who can hear differences between products. I am one of them. (Moderator: how does this post get through?) [Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ] LOL! :-) Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting 'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-) Not so. It's just that you seem to be a broken record. Your arguments carry no weight and fly in the face of experience. So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are permitted to spend on their equipment? I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply pointing out that it's a foolish indulgence - much like buying Leica gear. This response is telling. My Leica gear is the best investment I have ever made. It is demonstrably superior in mechanical and optical quality and in durability. It is actually cheaper in the long run. But since you obviously don't understand the economics of this, it will be your loss. I will graciously permit you to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like. I liked the term 'indulgence' better. The problem, as I see it, is simply that you're cheap. Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream' Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'..................... Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance, and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but redesigns. Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house. They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs. Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4 (Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about 1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation 19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made by anyone. I doubt that Zeiss, Canon or Nikon would agree with you, especially given the outstanding quality of the 1978 Nikon 20mm f4 The Leitz 21mm Schneider-desined SA came out in 1968. At that time, the 21mm Leitz lens blasted the then-current 20mm 3.5 Nikkor. The 19mm Canadian Leitz design came out in 1975. - but thanks for finally admitting that Leitz bought in lens designs because they had less design ability than Zeiss or Schneider. They had another design team in Canada along with production facilities. Between the two, a lot of good lenses came out in the 70's and 80's. But it does take time to design lenses that meet Leitz standards. I don't remember you...sitting next to me. No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and hence worthless. I'll not dignify this with a response. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case with audio products. Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical characteristics. Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they certainly do not. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. There are many people who can hear differences between products. I am one of them. No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. bob |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case with audio products. Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical characteristics. Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they certainly do not. Which two cables are you talking about, and why do you think they don't have similar electrical properties? Because of course if two cables *measure* differently enough, it's likely they will really *sound* different. Nothing mysterious about it, no new science needed to explain it. Hence the standard stipulations for cable comparisons. 100 ft of 12 gauge vs 1 ft of 21-gauge is not a the sort of comparison you had in mind, I trust. -- -S |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical characteristics. Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they certainly do not. And that is quite presumptuous of you. What "they" are you speaking of, and what are their electrical characteristics? (Do you even know? Will the manufacturer tell you?) By "similar electrical characteristics," I mean that their resistance, inductance, and capacitance are close enough that we would not predict that they would sound different in a carefully controlled comparison. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of cables on the market have such "similar electrical characteristics." The rest, if you will pardon the technical jargon, just plain suck. bob |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed. People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable is connected. The only conditions that matter are listening in my own familiar room to my own system. If anyone can manage to make this unsighted, fine. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On 27 Sep 2005 02:10:22 GMT, wrote:
wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case with audio products. Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical characteristics. Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they certainly do not. You presume without knowledge. Aside from resistance, which is purely a function of wire gauge, there's not much variation in electrical paremeters, despite what slick salesmen like George Cardas will try to tell you. The extreme ends of the reactance scale are represented by Kimber 8TC and Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI at the low-inductance end, and Naim NACA5 at the high-inductance end. I've compared ten-foot lengths of the Kimber and Naim cables into a 3 ohm load, and there's less than 1dB difference at 20kHz, and of course less as frequency reduces. Since this is significantly less than the variation common between two tweeters in the same pair of speakers, I doubt that it's audible. Note that the standard entry criterion for a DBT comparison is a requirement of matching to less than 0.2dB at 10kHz, which would mean that the cables actually do have pretty similar basic LCR electrical characteristics. If someone wants to bring a ludicrously extreme cable to the party, I can simulate any 'audiophile' cable, including the $1,000 a foot guys, for less than a buck a foot. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. There are many people who can hear differences between products. I am one of them. No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. Quite so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart:
Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. I presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100 Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables. It could be something as simple as better connections...... I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 27 Sep 2005 02:10:22 GMT, wrote: wrote: wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: After all, we can't *prove* that aliens don't exist, can we? But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case with audio products. Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical characteristics. Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they certainly do not. You presume without knowledge. Aside from resistance, which is purely a function of wire gauge, there's not much variation in electrical paremeters, despite what slick salesmen like George Cardas will try to tell you. The extreme ends of the reactance scale are represented by Kimber 8TC and Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI at the low-inductance end, and Naim NACA5 at the high-inductance end. I've compared ten-foot lengths of the Kimber and Naim cables into a 3 ohm load, and there's less than 1dB difference at 20kHz, and of course less as frequency reduces. Since this is significantly less than the variation common between two tweeters in the same pair of speakers, I doubt that it's audible. Note that the standard entry criterion for a DBT comparison is a requirement of matching to less than 0.2dB at 10kHz, which would mean that the cables actually do have pretty similar basic LCR electrical characteristics. If someone wants to bring a ludicrously extreme cable to the party, I can simulate any 'audiophile' cable, including the $1,000 a foot guys, for less than a buck a foot. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. There are many people who can hear differences between products. I am one of them. No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice. Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science doesn't exist. Quite so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
This has been done with several people who claimed 'night and day' differences such as you have done. Same result in each case - the 'obvious' differences mysteriously vanish when you don't *know* what's connected. The differences were not 'night and day', but subtle. 'Subtle' does not mean 'non-existent', however. Don't distort or misquote me. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart: Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean real ones, now imaginary ones.) I don't know. That's the problem. There are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. -- -S |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 28 Sep 2005 02:33:50 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed. People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable is connected. The only conditions that matter are listening in my own familiar room to my own system. If anyone can manage to make this unsighted, fine. This has been done with several people who claimed 'night and day' differences such as you have done. Same result in each case - the 'obvious' differences mysteriously vanish when you don't *know* what's connected. I would say rather that the obvious differences disappear when you are required to conceptualize them and on the basis of that conceptualization make a large number of discriminations in a limited amount of time. Also, some "night and day" differences are imagined. Mike -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Sep 2005 03:40:30 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: Stewart: Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean real ones, not imaginary ones.) With a good reactance meter, you can also measure the imaginary components! :-) [ Moderator note: I wondered if anyone was going to catch that. -- deb] -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever? No one who understands human hearing perception would waste his time on such an endeavor. It's nonsensical (as well as being a bad test). How would we know what the result would be if we haven't done it? Mike |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this will be directly related to the prestige of the badge. I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they have the resources. If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other random neuronal firing. Mike |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: Stewart: Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean real ones, now imaginary ones.) I don't know. That's the problem. There are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Yet you posit them as electrical values. So you claim to know something about them already. Our technology for measuring electrical values is quite well advanced, you know. What evidence other than sighted listening suggests that there are electrical 'unmeasurables' yet to be known that affect what one hears? How does your hypoethisis differ from suggesting that maybe *god* is changing the cables in subtle ways? -- -S |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 28 Sep 2005 02:33:50 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed. People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable is connected. The only conditions that matter are listening in my own familiar room to my own system. If anyone can manage to make this unsighted, fine. This has been done with several people who claimed 'night and day' differences such as you have done. Same result in each case - the 'obvious' differences mysteriously vanish when you don't *know* what's connected. I would say rather that the obvious differences disappear when you are required to conceptualize them and on the basis of that conceptualization make a large number of discriminations in a limited amount of time. Demonstrate that that is the reason why some disappear. Also, some "night and day" differences are imagined. Do tell. -- -S |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof. I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the possibility of halucination is remote. The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote possibility. There has to be something to reinforce, no? That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this will be directly related to the prestige of the badge. I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they have the resources. Actually, I'm being told over and over on RAO that 'it doesn't matter' to consumers whether the differences they hear are 'real' or not. It only matters that they're real to *them*. Needless to say, I find this viewpoint curiously incurious, not to mention a boon to snake-oil salesmen. If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other random neuronal firing. And in the second case, it's inappropriate to attribute the 'sound' to the gear. Do you think reviewers in , say, Stereophile, will agree? -- -S |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 02:09:20 GMT, wrote: Stewart: Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. Utter nonsense, we can *easily* measure all the electrical parameters associated with cables. Remember, that +/- 0.1dB entrance criterion for level-matched testing is about 1%, a considerable difference to anyone interested in measurements alone. My own test gear is a thousand times more sensitive than that. I presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100 Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables. Indeed, there will be small differences in R, L, and C, but so long as they don't cause more than 0.2dB of difference at 10kHz - which is unlikely - then there will not be any *audible* difference. It could be something as simple as better connections...... I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them... You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". I think it is more likely that Uranium Committee is skeptical that your paradigm is sufficient to demonstrate that differences do not exist, just as I am. On the other hand, condescending to those you disagree with certainly has a ring of religious dogma to it... Mike |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Free Ipods | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction | Marketplace | |||
FS: AMPS $25 SPEAKERS $19 PAIR - FREE SHIPPING | Pro Audio | |||
Market Your Product? | Audio Opinions | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio |