Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
On 12/7/04 7:47 PM, in article , "Billy Shears" wrote: In article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge. Logically, you are 100% correct. Nothing except that no one taking Randi up on it. But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and number of people he can get and keep the attention of. He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth, just its less capable cousin "debunking." Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or the other (myth) into his belief system. The same has been done by the priests and politicians and this is what enables crusades, terrorism and other atrocities around the world. We need a fresh and uncluttered approach to audio. I am very happy that the majority of this group seems to have started anew on this way. Scepticism, a clear mind and a relaxed attitude will benefit gathering personal experiences, which do not rely on somebody elses preachings. The intentions of these preachers might not be what they pretend to convey. It is not that only those poor in spirit or intelligence fall into the many pits set up by fake prophets, but also educated and well trained engineers, as can be seen in our group. The example given on Randis site have really changed my attitude about Stereophile and I now regard the whole mag as controlled by the industy and not by an enquiring spirit about music reproduction. Mr. Atkinsons unsensible replies have done the rest. Even if Randi himself has constraints to observe, I fully support his broadside attack against Stereophile. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
"But, seriously, Randi's "value" is only as large as the amount and number
of people he can get and keep the attention of. He does not appear to have any real interest in scientific truth, just its less capable cousin "debunking."" The first above can have substituted hi fi mags for randi. There is one school in the philosophy that says we don't "prove" anything because the next instance might be the theory breaker. Instead in science we hold a theory as long as we fail to disprove it. Which puts "debunk" as the center piece of science. Those who care about audio hold that wire etc. can make a difference as long as we fail to disprove it by example, but in the main the research to jeopardize the notion is avoided like the hiv virus. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
... "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge. Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it. Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money. The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it, regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations they come up with. Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on our own subjective listening.) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on our own subjective listening.) To be a critic is to be an enemy? That's no less contemptuous, if either is. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ... "Billy Shears" wrote in message ... In article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I suspect that is indeed the case. I think the ego of someone with the ability to actually hear what these people cliam, would cause them to jump at the chance to prove it. The $10K might not be a big incentive for some of these folks but one million? I lean towards the objectivist camp but Randi comports himself so poorly that I think anyone could be forgiven for not wanting anything to do with him. Nothing IMHO can be deduced from lack of participation in his fabulous "million-dollar" challenge. Perhaps Randi's poor comportment is due to the fact that he had the prize money waiting to be claimed for years and nobody has been able to win it. Be that as it may, I sense no one from the Atkinson/Subjectivist camp will ever participate in any bias controlled listening for any amount of money. The entire subjectivist empire would collapse and they all know it, regardless of how much they dance or how many excuses and rationalizations they come up with. Hey Chung, you don't think this is a bit contemptuous of those of us in the hobby who might be classified as subjectivists (even though we have made our own judgements not to use green pens, shakti stones, or whatever; and to instead use room treatments; and reasonably priced cables....all based on our own subjective listening.) Not really, although I was not the one you should respond to. I use Self's definition of subjectivist, and I would guess that Mr. McKelvy does, too. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Nousaine wrote:
B&D wrote: On 12/8/04 10:10 PM, in article , "Ban" wrote: Debunking is really what has to be done. Years of propaganda of myths in so called high-end mags have conditioned the minds of people interested in authentic sound reproduction, so that almost everybody has adopted one or the other (myth) into his belief system. While I would agree that real debunking is sometimes a good thing - I also think that the ability to admit when someone has got something wrong, or didn't get the facts quite right is part of it. I haven't seen any evidence that he does this.... And exactly where has any high-end advocate EVER admitted they were wrong about any claim? Tellig and Armor-All -- but I think there, the admission was that the stuff would damage your CDs; not sure he ever said it didn't improve the sound. I note that now he's touting an off-the-shelf Sony discman as having amazing sound, like he did the Radio Shack portable years ago. /me shakes head -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Addendum to plug-ins query... | Pro Audio |