Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Gareth,
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as .... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now. Gareth. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Gareth,
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in : I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the available evidence. progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now. The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science, something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies, everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio? I don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science. BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to disagree. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the available evidence. But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality and experience of the Audiophile. progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now. The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science, something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies, everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio? I don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science. BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to disagree. Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to agree to disagree. Gareth. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be 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. No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional. All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the current explanation is the wrong one. Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence. 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". This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely to be wrong (or right). Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have NO technology, for one thing. 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. You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person who repeats the observation under the same conditions. That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific facts in India versus Canada versus the US. Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something. It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another form of model building. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion wrote:
Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as ... you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed? It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system, we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away, accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction actually works. Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all. I mean, by Gareth's logic. Try to keep an open mind, will you? ; |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the available evidence. But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality and experience of the Audiophile. The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate model of reality. Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem not to shake his faith one tiny bit. Is this rational? All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test. Not *everything* one can believe, is true. Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to agree to disagree. Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers turned out to be *lucky guesses*. -- -S |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy. 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. I’ll take that as a Yes to the serious question. BTW, I’ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-) 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. It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only “tests” can tell you how something sounds, but you don’t do any yourself. Where’s the honesty? Where’s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-) 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. That’s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot know what the “tests” in question are really like until you’ve actually done them.) I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg. That doesn’t count because it’s only practice, not real. You have zero experience and zero knowledge of your precious “tests”. In my view, there’s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You’re not motivated to discover the truth because you don’t care at all how any system sounds. Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you haven't personally experienced yourself, George? Like, say, sexual intercourse? Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles. 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. No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three times. 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. You don’t mean “includes good sound”. You mean “regardless of how it sounds”. You bought a commodity box without auditioning it. I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various different ways. I’ve listened to a lot of different brands and I’ve owned a couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It’s not at all difficult to hear differences among them. But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you mail-ordered. You are a robot. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price, processing, connectivity. Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but they’re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn’t know any of this because you didn’t bother to find out. The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a store is “robot”. That’s you, Sillybot. 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*? Hey, that’s better than low-end. I’ll bet it sounds decent. BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don’t hear something is idiotic. You da ‘bot! 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." Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you. 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. Hardly™. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I’m as pecunious as anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable. 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. But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a separate preamp would be? If so, you’re the most ignorant robot ever. 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. 0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101! 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. This is truly twisted. You’re a pervbot. 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. Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might cost a few bucks, but it’ll stop the drunks from peeing on you. 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. But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure? '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. You don’t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be severely attenuated. Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers turned out to be *lucky guesses*. Agreed. Things like the Space Shuttle and farily reliable cures for once-fatal cancers are in some sense the "ultimate truth". Useful stuff like Flash USB storage doesn't work because of favorable reviewer opinions. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Steven,
Steven Sullivan wrote in : Try to keep an open mind, will you? ; no, not with this meaning of "open". I'm quite confident (which is quite different from having "faith") that science has found a way to describe the reality that is reliable enough for most of our needs, so I stick with it. To tell the whole truth I'm even a bit reluctant to use the word "science" when applied to audio. For the most part audio is just proper application of well known scientific facts, so probably the word "technology" is more adequate than "science" when talking about it. Does this means that I have a closed mind? Don't know, but I wonder if audio deserves so much "philosophycal" discussion about it. For me it's just a matter of reproducing what's on records with as much accuracy as possible. That's just because I have great respect for the artists and their work, so I hate to have it modified by my audio system. So far I saw no better way to ensure accuracy than relying on technology and, when needed, science, at least as I know it, which is no different than your intepretation. Bye, -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote: "Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the available evidence. But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality and experience of the Audiophile. The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate model of reality. Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem not to shake his faith one tiny bit. Is this rational? It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better. And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible. All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test. Not *everything* one can believe, is true. Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to agree to disagree. Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with each other. Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers turned out to be *lucky guesses*. -- -S |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Gareth Magennis said: And I think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in. Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with each other. Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to back your opinion. That's how science works................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote: I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. No, you'd just like to pretend that it is, in order to cook up some fanciful theory to justify your own prejudice. There's a century of scientific investigation that says you're wrong. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. There is *lots* of explanation of why people *imagine* such differences, there is *zero* likelihood that they really exist. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be severely attenuated. I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps. BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience." Stephen |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be similarly fooled. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote: "Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Gareth, "Gareth Magennis" wrote in : I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the available evidence. But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality and experience of the Audiophile. The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate model of reality. Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem not to shake his faith one tiny bit. Is this rational? It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better. But it may be only as 'real' as that mirage, or that *mistaken idea*. Or are there *no* mistaken ideas, only 'personal truths'? And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible. Wrong. I'm telling him that the *cause* that *he* has deduced for his experience isn't *necessarily* what he believes it is. A person stares at a cloud and experiences that it changes shape. The person concludes that the cloud changed shape because he stared at it. That's his personal idea of the 'truth' of the matter, but wouldn't you agree that this line of reasoning is open to question, and that other causes for the perceived shape change are not only plausible, but perhaps even more likely to be true? All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test. Not *everything* one can believe, is true. Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to agree to disagree. Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with each other. Yet the subjectivist will go on using an example of the patent evidence that some 'realities' are 'universal' -- namely, his computer. Remarkable. -- -S |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
Gareth Magennis said: And I think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in. Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything. Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only the most tenuous grasp of logic. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with each other. Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown. The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least. Enjoy yourselves. -- -S |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be severely attenuated. I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps. BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience." Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same outcome ; -- -S |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In rec.audio.opinion George Middius wrote:
The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy. 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. I?ll take that as a Yes to the serious question. BTW, I?ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-) Yes, your little Napoleon hat fits you quite nicely. Feel free to demote or promote at will, general. 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. It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only ?tests? can tell you how something sounds, but you don?t do any yourself. Where?s the honesty? Where?s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-) No, because generally I don't talk about how something sounded to me, do I? 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. That?s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot know what the ?tests? in question are really like until you?ve actually done them.) If it were true that such 'direct' knowledge was the only valid basis for accepting the rationale for a method, then it would be pointless to cite scientific work. The only allowable cites would be from those who actually have repeated the particular experiment, which isn't what happens, of course. Certainly actually *doing* it could *help* a dullard understand it, but it's not *necessary*. Some people are smart enough to grasp the facts and reasoning behind DBTs without actually doing them. Btw, if your claims about 'real' knowlege were true, it would also mean that *you* must acknowledge the validity of say, Tom Nousaine or Arny Kruger's *direct* experience with gear DBTs. And too, it would mean that your dismissal of my, or anyone's, sound system and/or hearing abilities would be invalid,s ince you've never experienced them firsthand. Somehow, I don't see you doing either any time soon. However, you ranting that it's 'zero knowlege' alas doesn't make it true in the real world. I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg. That doesn?t count because it?s only practice, not real. You have zero experience and zero knowledge of your precious ?tests?. Curious. How is doing a DBT only *practice* for doing a DBT? You're flailing here, generalissimo. In my view, there?s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You?re not motivated to discover the truth because you don?t care at all how any system sounds. Gosh, then why castigate me for not having done gear DBTs? You wouldn't believe my results if I did. Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you haven't personally experienced yourself, George? Like, say, sexual intercourse? Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles. I'll take that as a 'no', then. 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. No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three times. No, I didn't say that. However, if you're going to simply lie about what I've written, you'll make it back into my killfile that much faster. 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. You don?t mean ?includes good sound?. You mean ?regardless of how it sounds?. You bought a commodity box without auditioning it. I didn't audition in, true. But of course if it had sounded broken to me when I heard it at home, I'd have returned it. If DPL II hadn't functioned I'd have returned it. If the ilink and USB inputs hadn't worked I'd have returned it. Etc. I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various different ways. I?ve listened to a lot of different brands and I?ve owned a couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It?s not at all difficult to hear differences among them. Those 'differences' tend to amount to differences in ability to power different loads at different levels before clipping. They don't tend to be intrinsic differences about sound quality (ie, at matched levels, below clipping). However, there's a few thousand dollars waiting for you, if you can prove I'm wrong by demonstarting your ability to distinguish such amps. Are you brave enough to claim it? I suspect not. You're a miserable tinpot coward, generalissimo. And of course, you *haven't* listened to the 56txi (which isn't considered part of a 'low end' line by audiophile mags, including Stereophile), nor, if you did, would your anecdotal reportage about its sound be worth the pixels you wasted on it -- even if your review was positive. But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you mail-ordered. You are a robot. Clearly, robots are smarter than 'normals'. ; Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price, processing, connectivity. Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but they?re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn?t know any of this because you didn?t bother to find out. Actually, I did quite a bit of research to find this out. I certainly don't claim complete 'interchangeability' in all dimenstions of quality -- some are *built* better than others, for sure, and are likely to last longer; some have more sophisticated features than others, etc -- but I'm rather confident that the evidence points to *intrinsic differences in sound* being rather a non-issue. Then again, you can ask people who *have* had direct DBT experience with amps even you would have to admit are 'high end'. Their experience seems to contradict yours. The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a store is ?robot?. That?s you, Sillybot. 'Robot, robot , robot' -- gracious, *you* look like the one stuck in a loop, General G. In-store audition for solid state gear would be fine, *if* one could be sure to do it double blind , level-matched, with all other gear the same. Lacking that, one might just as well buy without audition. Nothing unreasonable about that. Of course, make sure you have a money-back return guarantee either way. In-store audition of speakers, even 'blind', would not likely predict how the speakers would sound in one's own home, except as regards gross differences (e.g. full-range vs satellite) -- certainly not at the resolution that appears to matter to 'audiophiles', where 'subtle nuances' are everything. 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*? Hey, that?s better than low-end. I?ll bet it sounds decent. That's a good bet, but not for the reasons you think. BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don?t hear something is idiotic. You da ?bot! If I *did* make such a demand (and I haven't), it'd surely be no more idiotic that your own spittle-flecked contributions to the newsgroups. 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." Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you. Sorry, general, but I happened upon Fremer's review long after I bought the gear (and btw, he's talking abotu a different model, the 49tx). So it couldn't have influenced me. However, a review that did was the one in Sound & Vision of the 59txi, which described its ilink capabilities and room correction features. I suspect David Ranada, who did that review, would take the high quality of the sound as a given, as he is an objectivist -- but they also helpfully included bench test info to back that up. So, again, my buying behavior is quite consistent with my recommendations, general. So why the call to arms? 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. Hardly?. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I?m as pecunious as anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable. So, you're as pecunious as anybody? Why, then, someone who is admittedly pecunious, would use that as a pejorative, or assume its a sign of *penury*, is admittedly a question even my robot logic can't answer. Unless it's that you're simply a *miserable creep*. 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. But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a separate preamp would be? If so, you?re the most ignorant robot ever. Do you foolishly believe that preamps are likely to sound different when auditioned with the proper controls in place? Permission to disagree, SIR! Where's the evidence? Your own experience with blind comparisons of preamps, perhaps? The fact is, the supposed 'superiority' of high-end separates may sometimes be measurable, sometimes audible, sometimes neither. 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. 0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101! Garbage in, garbage out. ; 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. This is truly twisted. You?re a pervbot. If reasoning annoys you, it's *got* to be good, clean fun. 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. Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might cost a few bucks, but it?ll stop the drunks from peeing on you. Lacking any real arguments, you do seem to rely on your endless supply of bile for 'rebuttals'. And I suppose that had to come from somewhere... 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. But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure? I made reasonable predictions that it would sound just fine, that its features would be as advertised, and that it would look the way it did in the photos. Wow, lucky me, I was right! '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. You don?t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad. Human being, myself included, are fallible. Some of them are smart and realize this. Others pretend it's not true or that it doesn't matter. Sad. -- -S |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Sillybot, did you get an Emotion Chip? How daring. ;-) his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in. Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything. Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only the most tenuous grasp of logic. Actually, you feel that. You can look up "emotion" in any dictionary, in case your programming didn't cover it. Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown. The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least. Enjoy yourselves. What do you think of this, Silly: "Existence exists." Is that a good summary by a clever person or a fatuous copout by a lazy jackass? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be severely attenuated. I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps. BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience." Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same outcome ; No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the Pioneer/Krell party trick. And the Zip tests proved... zip. Stephen |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"MINe 109" wrote in message
In article , Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Ever hear of a phantom switch experience? I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting. In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them. But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting. Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver. You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because the listener *heard* them as different. The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system. Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*? Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be severely attenuated. I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps. BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience." Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same outcome ; No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the Pioneer/Krell party trick. And the Zip tests proved... zip. Actually they proved quite a bit about Zippy's lack of honesty and general lack of character. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main gripes about Science versus The Rest. I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am still saying that this may not actually be true. Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all. So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject? Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to undserstanding it? Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some instances, merely observing a situation changes it. You could extrapolate this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer to do. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment. We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film "What the bleep do we know"). And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Gareth. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to back your opinion. That's how science works................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. Gareth. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis" wrote: My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know* which cable was connected. Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to *really* trust their ears. You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible? Gareth. Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to back your opinion. That's how science works................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. Gareth. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. There is a difference, you know. d |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote: And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist. But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent. There is a difference, you know. d OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening. Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible. Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results. Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips. But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test. There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all, other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count. Gareth. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't. Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that simple explanations are more likely to be correct. When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and hypothesize new scientific discoveries to explain things that you perceive, which are easy to show are just audible illusions, this should be a wake up call. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening. Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible. What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |