There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.

http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf

I wonder if the Audiophool purveyors also sell diet pills. When is a diet
pill worth $153.00?

"Nobody" wrote in message ...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.

http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf



I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.



Gareth.

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Nobody" wrote in message ...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.

http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf



I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.

Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.

What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?


--

-S

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Nobody" wrote in message ...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.

http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf


I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here.

Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study.

It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.

Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but
clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared
to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember
who debunked that particular foolishness?

Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.

What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?

I think we got another live one here! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Nobody" wrote in message ...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.

http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf


I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here.

Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study.

It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.

Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but
clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared
to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember
who debunked that particular foolishness?

Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.

What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?

I think we got another live one here! :-)


Who, me or Gareth? ;

I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.





--

-S

I think we got another live one here! :-)


Who, me or Gareth? ;

I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.



Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I
am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are,
that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH
sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what
are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge"
about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed
fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave
or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with
something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to
say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model
in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be
out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this
planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this
problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to
need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't
know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical
theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition
neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that
yours is correct.



Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

The
basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present
moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them.

You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack
of knowlege, Gareth.

I find it ridiculous that so many
people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they
have the definitive answer to what are very tricky
questions.

I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them
are reasonably simple, clear and relevant.

I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that
current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works
is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when
observations no longer fit the theory of light being a
wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and
try and come up with something that does fit, like a
superstring theory.

Typical golden ear dupe double-talk.

Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and
not cold fusion.

Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race
car drivers or builders about how questions about the theory
of relativity will profoundly affect the outcome of their
next race, they'd probably laugh you back to the asylum.

People who understand how audio works might be a little more
charitable, or not.

This sort of talk may work with your friends and customers,
but in the larger context of Usenet, it just won't wash.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

The
basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present
moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them.

You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack of knowlege,
Gareth.

I find it ridiculous that so many
people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they
have the definitive answer to what are very tricky
questions.

I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them are
reasonably simple, clear and relevant.

I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that
current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works
is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when
observations no longer fit the theory of light being a
wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and
try and come up with something that does fit, like a
superstring theory.

Typical golden ear dupe double-talk.

Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and not cold
fusion.

Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race car drivers or
builders about how questions about the theory of relativity will
profoundly affect the outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh
you back to the asylum.

People who understand how audio works might be a little more charitable,
or not.



OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.


Gareth.

On 10/4/2005 4:58 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
I think we got another live one here! :-)

Who, me or Gareth? ;

I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.



Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I
am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are,
that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH
sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what
are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge"
about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed
fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave
or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with
something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to
say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model
in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be
out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this
planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this
problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to
need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't
know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical
theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition
neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that
yours is correct.



Gareth.



Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either
theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is
created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General
Relativity - String Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest
you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book.
This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell
predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan

Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan


Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality. We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.




Gareth.

Gareth Magennis wrote:
OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.

Not anywhere near as foolish as the people championing phlogiston,
perpetual motion, eugenics, green pens, magic wires, wooden hockey
pucks and more.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.

He did not of course say that, despite the constant efforts of
audiphools like you to claim such. No, the situation is that we do
know a tremendous amount about audio equipment, about the physiology
of hearing, and about the psychology of perception. Now, if *you* wish
to challenge this fund of accumulated knowledge with a new idea which
goes contrary to accepted wisdom, i.e. if you wish to make an
extraordinary claim, then it's up to *you* to provide some pretty
strong evidence in support. That *is* how Science works.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:


Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan


Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.

Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you?

We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.

The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable
*observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing
worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips,
whatever).
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan

Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.

Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you?

One can really not understand reality without trying to model it.
Mathematics is the tool to use. Remember that the sun used to revolve
around the earth? You seem to want to BECOME reality, which is an
impossibility. Do you find your five senses useful or would you prefer
not have this capability? Use the tools.

We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.

The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable
*observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing
worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips,
whatever).

On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan

Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.


I never said the only facts are mathematic. It is a fact that George
Bush is the president of USA; what does this have to do with
mathematics? It is a fact that hearing is one of the five human senses.
Now in parallel universe GB may be dog living in the inner city and
humans have 20 senses, but that certainly is not the universe I am
living in. Maybe you are in that one.


Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you?

We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.

The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable
*observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing
worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips,
whatever).

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

The
basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present
moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them.

You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general
lack of knowlege, Gareth.

I find it ridiculous that so many
people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they
have the definitive answer to what are very tricky
questions.

I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of
them are reasonably simple, clear and relevant.

I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that
current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works
is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when
observations no longer fit the theory of light being a
wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and
try and come up with something that does fit, like a
superstring theory.

Typical golden ear dupe double-talk.

Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science,
and not cold fusion.

Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup
race car drivers or builders about how questions about
the theory of relativity will profoundly affect the
outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh you
back to the asylum.

People who understand how audio works might be a little
more charitable, or not.

OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing
more to discover about audio perception if that suits
you.

Oh dear Gareth, please do spare us the sophmoric
excluded-middle argument.

I never said that there was nothing more to discover about
audio perception, I simply and clearly said that in order to
discover more about audio perception, we probably wouldn't
have to invalidate the majority of what we know today.

This attitude is surprisingly common in the history
of science, and don't those people look foolish now.

Yawn.




Gareth.

Dan wrote:
On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan

Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.


I never said the only facts are mathematic. It is a fact that George
Bush is the president of USA; what does this have to do with
mathematics?


51% 48%

;


--

-S

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:34:50 -0500, Dan wrote:

On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton - General Relativity - String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).

Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?

Dan

Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.

Agreed, but it can give us a very good model of reality. Can you?

One can really not understand reality without trying to model it.
Mathematics is the tool to use. Remember that the sun used to revolve
around the earth?

No, it didn't.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical
terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who
apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves
it
then". It doesn't.

The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable
*observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing
worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips,
whatever).
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that if there is no
evidence available yet, then that situation is not possible, and this means
you can laugh at those who have a more open minded approach to that
possibility.


To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the one where the
audiophile claims to hear a difference between two cables. You go in and
cover stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the
audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Now any real scientist would approach this situation a bit like this: There
are at least 2 explanations for this phenomenon.
1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the difference between the
cables because there isn't one.
2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the difference between
the two cables.


Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2 out of the equation
before he would even think of saying that situation 1 is definately true.
Now how could he do that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the
experience or the knowledge to find out what happens inside the concious
brain when listening to music and conducting tests, or indeed both at the
same time. Bummer. We really need to do a lot more research on this first.


On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the extraordinarily
unscientific approach and say "its obvious that the audiophile is mistaken
because we know for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible
difference between these two cables, because nobody has yet been able to
show in a test that they can tell such a difference, and we know all there
is to know about the science of listening to cables. Therefore anyone who
claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them "audiophools".
Basically you are saying that a lack of evidence proves that something is
true or false. Thus the fact that we have not yet been able to find evidence
of extraterrestrial intelligence is proof that none exists. This is such
ridiculous and unscientific reasoning and any real scientist would tell you
to go right back to school and learn to do it properly, before going back to
searching the universe for something they might have missed.





Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that
if there is no evidence available yet, then that
situation is not possible, and this means you can laugh
at those who have a more open minded approach to that
possibility.

I've only been looking for the evidence for 30 years.

Many others have been looking for other periods of time,
many quite lengthy.

I guess that counts for nothing.

To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile
can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his
judgements on sight, not sound.

Now any real scientist would approach this situation a
bit like this: There are at least 2 explanations for
this phenomenon.

1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the
difference between the cables because there isn't one.

Well, there is a difference, its just that its so small that
the audiophile can't hear it.

2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the
difference between the two cables.

That's a fact.

The question of whether he ever heard a difference is
actually not all that interesting. That was then, this is
now.

Far more interesting is the question as to whether he will
ever hear a difference in the future.


Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2
out of the equation before he would even think of saying
that situation 1 is definately true.

In science there is no such thing as a definite truth like
this. All findings are provisional and might change in the
future, given additional evidence and understandings.

Now how could he do
that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the
experience or the knowledge to find out what happens
inside the concious brain when listening to music and
conducting tests, or indeed both at the same time. Bummer.
We really need to do a lot more research on this
first.

Not at all.

We can repeat the tests done thus far, and see what happens.
Do sighted and blind tests for a day (this has been done)
and see what happens. We can try to think up additional ways
to improve the reliability and sensitivity of our tests, and
this has been done for at least 30 years.

On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the
extraordinarily unscientific approach and say "its
obvious that the audiophile is mistaken because we know
for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible
difference between these two cables, because nobody has
yet been able to show in a test that they can tell such a
difference, and we know all there is to know about the
science of listening to cables.

This is what happens when Arny is subjected to some bozo
trying to speak for him. Probably the same for Pinkerton, et
al as well.

Someone pulls some weird gibberish out of the back of their
neck, and suddenly its what we said. :-(

Therefore anyone who
claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them
"audiophools".

Nahh, we look at the results of days, weeks, and years of
testing under a variety of conditions and with a number of
changes and improvements to the procedures.

The results are always the same - remove sighted cues and
the listener is reduced to random guessing.


Basically you are saying that a lack of
evidence proves that something is true or false.

No we're saying that after centuries of looking for pots of
gold at the ends of rainbows, none have been reliably found.
Some lucky dudes did chase the ends of rainbows and
eventually found pots of gold, but even they admit that the
correlation between the rainbow chasing and the gold finding
was very weak.

Wanna buy the end of a rainbow?

Wanna buy those fancy cables?

To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile
can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on
sight, not sound.




I rest my case.



Gareth.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the
audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing
his judgements on sight, not sound.

I rest my case.

Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context
quote.

I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand
the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he does
understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't care
about it.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the
audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing
his judgements on sight, not sound.

I rest my case.

Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote.

I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept
of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty
and just doesn't care about it.




Interesting diversionary tactic, Arny.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


See, this is my main gripe with you guys. You say that
if there is no evidence available yet, then that
situation is not possible, and this means you can laugh
at those who have a more open minded approach to that
possibility.

I've only been looking for the evidence for 30 years.

Many others have been looking for other periods of time, many quite
lengthy.

I guess that counts for nothing.






To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the audiophile
can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing his judgements on
sight, not sound.





I rest my case.




Gareth.











Now any real scientist would approach this situation a
bit like this: There are at least 2 explanations for
this phenomenon.

1. That the audiophile can't actually tell the
difference between the cables because there isn't one.

Well, there is a difference, its just that its so small that the
audiophile can't hear it.

2. In this test the audiophile can no longer hear the
difference between the two cables.

That's a fact.

The question of whether he ever heard a difference is actually not all
that interesting. That was then, this is now.

Far more interesting is the question as to whether he will ever hear a
difference in the future.


Now this real scientist would have to rule situation 2
out of the equation before he would even think of saying
that situation 1 is definately true.

In science there is no such thing as a definite truth like this. All
findings are provisional and might change in the future, given additional
evidence and understandings.

Now how could he do
that? Hmm, we don't really have the equipment, the
experience or the knowledge to find out what happens
inside the concious brain when listening to music and
conducting tests, or indeed both at the same time. Bummer. We really need
to do a lot more research on this
first.

Not at all.

We can repeat the tests done thus far, and see what happens. Do sighted
and blind tests for a day (this has been done) and see what happens. We
can try to think up additional ways to improve the reliability and
sensitivity of our tests, and this has been done for at least 30 years.

On the other hand, Arny, Pinkerton et al take the
extraordinarily unscientific approach and say "its
obvious that the audiophile is mistaken because we know
for an absolute fact that there cannot be any audible
difference between these two cables, because nobody has
yet been able to show in a test that they can tell such a
difference, and we know all there is to know about the
science of listening to cables.

This is what happens when Arny is subjected to some bozo trying to speak
for him. Probably the same for Pinkerton, et al as well.

Someone pulls some weird gibberish out of the back of their neck, and
suddenly its what we said. :-(

Therefore anyone who
claims to be able to is an idiot and we shall call them
"audiophools".

Nahh, we look at the results of days, weeks, and years of testing under a
variety of conditions and with a number of changes and improvements to the
procedures.

The results are always the same - remove sighted cues and the listener is
reduced to random guessing.


Basically you are saying that a lack of
evidence proves that something is true or false.

No we're saying that after centuries of looking for pots of gold at the
ends of rainbows, none have been reliably found. Some lucky dudes did
chase the ends of rainbows and eventually found pots of gold, but even
they admit that the correlation between the rainbow chasing and the gold
finding was very weak.

Wanna buy the end of a rainbow?

Wanna buy those fancy cables?

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed.
You are free to waste your money however you see fit.

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is
dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you
see fit.

Agreed..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed.
You are free to waste your money however you see fit.

MrT.





Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. And Mr George W Bush only
recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because up
to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to
support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of the
massive vested interest he has in denying it.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is
dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you
see fit.

Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again.

Darn all that rationality!

And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that
global
warming was actually happening because up to that point
his administration considered there was no hard evidence
to support the notion. Funny how that matter was
dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he
has in denying it.

There's no foul in saying that there's no evidence when
there is no evidence, and saying that there is evidence when
the evidence finally materializes. If you chase every bird
that flies over your house, you won't get much else done.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u...

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is
dismissed. You are free to waste your money however you
see fit.

Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again.

Darn all that rationality!

And Mr George W Bush only recently had to admit that global
warming was actually happening because up to that point
his administration considered there was no hard evidence
to support the notion. Funny how that matter was
dismissed too because of the massive vested interest he
has in denying it.

There's no foul in saying that there's no evidence when there is no
evidence, and saying that there is evidence when the evidence finally
materializes. If you chase every bird that flies over your house, you
won't get much else done.

Not only that, but just because evidence exists that we might be in a global
warming trend in no way implies that humans are causing it. The planet has
gone through dramatic warming and cooling phases in the past without our
help, thank you very much.

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
...
I rest my case.

And since you have not made your case, the matter is dismissed.
You are free to waste your money however you see fit.

Yeah, right, typical Western attitude again. And Mr George W Bush only
recently had to admit that global warming was actually happening because
up
to that point his administration considered there was no hard evidence to
support the notion. Funny how that matter was dismissed too because of
the
massive vested interest he has in denying it.

And as soon as you put up some SCIENTIFIC evidence, we will be happy to
examine it.

Amazing how you try to turn things around, it is the people who support the
scientific principal you are arguing with. YOU are the one doing the "George
Bush"!

MrT.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
sheet and swap round the cables. Suddenly the
audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing
his judgements on sight, not sound.

I rest my case.

Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote.

I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept
of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty
and just doesn't care about it.

Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience?
If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the
sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components
"sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a
whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what
controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car
runs better after it's been washed and waxed!

"John Richards" wrote in message
...
Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening
experience?
If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the
sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components
"sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a
whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what
controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car
runs better after it's been washed and waxed!

Yes, the drag coefficient is reduced when the car is waxed. But how do *YOU*
pick the difference?

The same can be said for audio. There may be many *minute* factors we can't
account for, but do they make an *audible* difference to the vast majority
of people?
This is actually pretty easy to verify, despite all the hand waving of
people who pretend otherwise. However if they feel they can hear a
difference, nobody is stopping them making their own choices.
It's just their vain attempts to justify their choices to the world, that I
object to. Why do they think it is necessary anyway? Maybe they aren't so
sure after all?

MrT.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"John Richards" wrote in message
...
Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening
experience?
If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the
sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two
components
"sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a
whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what
controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car
runs better after it's been washed and waxed!

Yes, the drag coefficient is reduced when the car is waxed. But how do
*YOU*
pick the difference?

The difference can be explained simply as an increased sense of wellbeing
from driving a visually appealing car, not from any actual performance
increase. Neither a double blind test nor a technical evaluation of the
performance of the car would likely confirm my experience.


The same can be said for audio. There may be many *minute* factors we
can't
account for, but do they make an *audible* difference to the vast majority
of people?

Probably not. But could these same *minute* factors influence the the total
experience of a small minority?

This is actually pretty easy to verify, despite all the hand waving of
people who pretend otherwise.

From what I have seen of this argument, most of the "subjectivists" claim
that the scientific approach to evaluating audio equipment is not conclusive
and absolute. They are claiming that SOME people can discern a difference
in the audio experience that may not be consistent with scientific testing.

However if they feel they can hear a
difference, nobody is stopping them making their own choices.

No, as long as they are willing to acknowledge that they are stupid.

It's just their vain attempts to justify their choices to the world, that
I
object to.

Maybe they find it annoying to be challenged as "audiophools" whenever they
cite an experience that may not be consistent with the outcome of all the
scientific tests.

Why do they think it is necessary anyway?

Maybe they like to discuss there own experiences in audio as most
audiophiles do and maybe these experiences are not always consistent with
current scientific "facts" as you see them.

Maybe they are'nt so sure after all?

Or maybe the scientific community is not so secure in their positions and
feel the necessity to insult anyone who suggests that there might be more to
the issue than a double blind test can demonstrate.


MrT.

"John Richards" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message


To feed back one of your favourite situations, take
the one where the audiophile claims to hear a
difference between two cables. You go in and cover
stuff up with a sheet and swap round the cables.
Suddenly the audiophile can no longer tell you which
cable is which.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was
basing his judgements on sight, not sound.

I rest my case.

Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context
quote. I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to
understand the concept of intellectual dishonesty, or he
does understand intellectual dishonesty and just doesn't
care about it.

Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the
listening experience?

Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute certainty.

If you can allow for that
possibility, then I suggest that isolating the sense of
hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two
components "sound" the same but has nothing to do with
the listening experience as a whole.

John, are you trying to obfuscate or what?

Just to bring you up to speed with the discussion, the
general context is not about the listening experience as a
whole, but rather whether or not certain very specific
equipment changes make audible differences.

Maybe there is more
to individual human perception than what controlled
scientific tests can identify.

Since Science is essentially the study of abstractions of
reality (e.g. concepts and theories), that's always true. So
you've managed to hypothesize something that is already a
truism. I think that's called trivial thinking.

I know for a fact that my car runs better after it's been
washed and waxed!

That depends a lot on how you define "runs better". If you
define runs better as "makes me feel better" then thats fine
and good as far as it goes, but don't try to sell that down
at the race track unless it actually makes you car go faster
as measured by a stop watch. BTW, clean cars do generally go
faster, but its a subtle difference. Horsepower still
means something.

Arny,

Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the
listening experience?

Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute certainty.

Agreed. I noticed years ago that music sounds better when accompanied by
visuals. My theory is the visuals provide a sort of distraction, so you
don't notice audible or musical flaws as readily.

--Ethan

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message

Arny,

"John Richards" wrote in message



Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the
listening experience?

Huh? It's almost a certainty, if not an absolute
certainty.

Agreed. I noticed years ago that music sounds better when
accompanied by visuals. My theory is the visuals provide
a sort of distraction, so you don't notice audible or
musical flaws as readily.

IME, the ultimate in visuals that distract from just
listening to the sound is called "A live performance".

This leads to the common situation where a well-made
recording of a live event rarely if ever sounds as
satisfying as the memory of the actual event.

Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!


So is bird **** actually a gift from Nature? ;



--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:36:12 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Somebody claimed that a waxed car runs faster due to reduced friction.

Not necessarily true, as turbulent boundary flow can actually *reduce*
drag over pure laminar flow. Read this and smile, all ye autoslobs who
let Mother Nature wash your cars!


So is bird **** actually a gift from Nature? ;

It drops like manna from the heavens above.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering