[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 10:59 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
Testing in all its permutations and combinations:

ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.

After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
act upon the admission.

And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
exists.

So the number of numbers, angels, THD, IMD or decibels as might be
dancing on the head of that pin, blind or sighted, is meaningless in
the face of an honest listener. Less than honest listeners will be
snookered or convince themselves of their righteousness in direct
proportion to their dishonesty. 'Twas ever thus. All the "industry"
does is provide opportunities. No more.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa. This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs. That would be you. Though that
condition is certainly not limited to you.

This is what I ask of everyone who offers these lofty pseudo-sociological
arguments (adjusted to suit the rhetoric you've used):

Are there *any* 'means' that you consider 'abradable', in *any* situation? Or do you accept
every 'means' as being equally good in every situation?

I would suggest the answer to the latter is no, from your posts on, say, rec.audio.high-end,
which leads me to think that you believe that some things really are more likely to be true,
than some other things.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:59 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
Testing in all its permutations and combinations:

ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.

After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
act upon the admission.


Actually, said listener 'must' (is that a closely held belief?) also have the
the constitutional fortitude to admit the possibility of being wrong even
after the long term...especially when the evaluations remain wholly sighted.

And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
exists.

Unless and until said listener declaims on a public forum that X sounds
better/worse/different than Y because of Z. Then that becomes a claim
of causes and effects.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world. Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world. I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information. As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things. Much of what I learn fails when actually put
to the test, but does not make the test any less enjoyable. And those
few things that really do make me perk up and take notice are well
worth the failures. And I am perfectly able to hold two (by the
standards of many) mutually exclusive opinions in my mind at exactly
the same time: Tube Equipment can sound very nice. Solid-State
Equipment can sound very nice. I own both in small quantity.

I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
whatever is the final target environment.

This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed. I choose to do
it from the perspective of a bottom-feeder hunting crumbs and bits,
restoring cast-off crumbs and bits, or even finding the occasional
flawed gem and working around the flaw. So, the Scott LK-150 that I
came across by pure blind luck (thank you Keith!) will be pried from
my cold dead fingers, as will the Revox A720. The fancy interconnects
that I got as part of an auction Box-Lot (Kimber) for $5.00 did
nothing for me, nor for what I can hear. So, they went away in trade
for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
opportunity.

In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.

But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.

Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
respect.

Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.

As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:

a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
in solid-state and tube circuits.

They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...


And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

I admit it, I have a long list of closely-held beliefs. For example I
believe that there is a moon that circulates around the earth about every 28
days.

I'll even go far as to admit that I believe that several US astronauts
walked around on the surface of that moon, err many moons ago. ;-)

I get this impression that Peter thinks that believing in stuff like
Information Theory is some kind of leap of faith.

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise. No leap of faith required there.

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed. I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

If irony killed! - Read on!

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise.

Wrong. Definately not about understandability. That's called articulation.
Information theory is far, far general than that.

No leap of faith required there.

Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas about
Information Theory!

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed.

Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
signal which is exactly about validity and quality.

I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 4:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

Mpfffffffff... KEERIST on a CRUTCH.

Lemme see:

The sky is up. If transferred and understood at the other end is
clear.

All cats are blue. If transferred and understood at the other end is
also clear.

But the latter statement is also false. Invalid. Of poor quality. Also
unimportant.

Does that clarify? Transferring data accurately through/over/despite
noise is one thing. That the data is worth the effort is entirely
else.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:43:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical
of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

If irony killed! - Read on!

It seems to me you're more interested in browbeating to 'win' rather
than understanding and illumination.

You mean like you're doing, Flipper?

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise.

Wrong.

Depends on what he meant.

If he meant something other than the clear meaning of the words, yes.

Definately not about understandability.

If he meant the ability of a decoder to recover ('understand')
transmitted information then he's essentially correct.

Pretzel logic noted. Intent is obvious - browbeat and humiliate.

That's called articulation.

If by "articulation" you're referring to speech recognition then
you're talking about a subjective 'decoder' (I.E. a human listener)
that uses a host of non random predictive processes in deciphering the
'meaning' and that's a 'content' different than simply the 'raw
information' transmitted.

Doooh!

Information theory would deal with that as entropy, mutual
information, self information, et al, but it's a moot point because
all of the discussion in here about bandwidth and S/N ratios presume
raw random bits, which may not be 100% applicable with a
'predictive/subjective decoder' (I.E. human perception)..

Wrong again flipper - the proper terms are bandwidth and dynamic range.
It's a common mistake to confuse dynamic range and SNR, but they are indeed
distinct.

Information theory is far, far general than that.

Not sure how you're defining 'general' nor whether that's 'good or
bad' to the purpose of a specific process: 'music' reproduction that
will be perceived by a 'human'.

Your lack of assuredness no doubt comes from lack of knowlege, Flipper.
You're over your head.

No leap of faith required there.

Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas
about
Information Theory!

Then why don't you try some illumination rather than ad hominems?

There was no personal attack, rather a criticism of wrong-headed ideas. Do
try to understand the meanings of the words you use, Flipper.

Speaking of which, you 'talk' a lot about information theory but I
can't recall seeing any illumination as to which equations you're
using or how you arrive at the conclusions made.

I feel no need to rewrite standard texts.

For example, you once made a comparison with a 10dB difference and
said something like that being an order of magnitude bandwidth
difference but if you're using the standard Shannon channel capacity
equation (presuming white Gaussian noise ) then I don't think your
math adds up. Could be wrong, of course, because you never say how you
get there.

I'm afraid that I have no recollection of what you are talking about here.
Do try to find a quote, if you want me to defend something that I actually
wrote.

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed.

Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
signal which is exactly about validity and quality.

Shannon entropy is about the randomness of the information bits. I.E.
If the information is perfectly predicable then the entropy is 0
because you don't really need to transmit anything. It's 'uncertainty'
is 0.

Doooh!

That says nothing about any self information, however. For example

SOS(pause)SOS(pause)SOS
and
BOB(pause)BOB(pause)BOB

have the same entropy but a subjective decoder (I.E. human) interprets
them differently.

And your point is?

This gets back to the earlier comment about the 'specific process'
(and your "far, far general") because both have exactly the same
SN/bandwidth requirements but result in different 'perceptions'.

Note the repeated confusion of SNR and dynamic range.

I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information
Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm
not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
unlikely in this one.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

Externalization on this level is pitiful to see. I really had a lot more
repesct for you than that, Peter.

But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
unlikely in this one.

Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation. You're the
guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
of cheeks to turn. I recommend something long, tall and cool and maybe a
week away from Usenet, until you can settle down.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Sep, 14:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.


Maybe George wants it!

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Sep, 17:11, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"
You're the
guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
of cheeks to turn.

that's right, you have four of them.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg spews some therapy-babble.

Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation.

Arnii, does your therapist know about that study that chilled Dr. Melfi?

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ.


Again, this is more rhetoric than substance. How do you distinguish 'Holy Writ'
from other modes of rhetoric? Is stating an accepted scientific fact 'foisting
Holy Writ'? Where is the line drawn for you?


I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone.

Are you 'closely held beliefs' peculiar to you, or are any of them closely held
by others too?

And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So, would you say it come down to *attitude*, rather than facts behind
the argument? (personally, I find arguments that employ Capitals
for Emphasis to be rather Off-Putting and Pretentious)


I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
whatever is the final target environment.


And what makes you think blind testing *can't* do that? If long-term
listening in the target environment is required to 'imprint' the *real*
audibole differences on a person -- which is waht you seem to imply -
what 'problems' does a blind test done *after the imprinting has occurred*
have?

This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed.


It is a hobby with a notably technical underpinning. That may be why
subjective preferences so often bleed into technical claims, in the hobby.


for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
opportunity.

Are the cable faithful really being denied opportunity to sing hosanna?
Seems to me it's *objectivists* who are in teh minority, in the usual audio
forums. They're the 'atheists', after all. The mainstream is 'religious',
in audiophile cutlure as in wider culture.

In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.

But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.

No one can 'make' you sing any of these tunes, so your fears seem
more than a bit overblown.

Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
respect.

And to trot out another cliche, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Some things really *don't* need to be argued about.

Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.

Again, you disagree with attitude and rhetoric.

As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:

a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
in solid-state and tube circuits.

They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.

As stated, I would find them both merely anecdotal, with all that implies.
Were you to expand on the nature of the 'experiments', and bring in other
facts to bear, I might 'upgrade' them.

Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately establish cause
and effect.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise. No leap of faith required there.

Audio forum evidence strongly suggests that many an 'audiophile' has found the Nyquist-Shannon
theorem and its consequences for audio, to be anything but intuitive, clear , or
understandable.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.

Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing them?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world.

All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.

Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world.

People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws and
principles to stop them in their tracks.

I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information.

Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.

As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things.

Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.

Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing
them?


In fact there is nothing at all wrong with closely-held beliefs, as long as
they are correct and you apply them correctly.

I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately
establish cause and effect.

Damned straight.

There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Same general experiment with other tube equipment yielded the same
general results. It was an oddball that I used as my base, I am
trying to remember if it was a Fisher or a Kenwood... goes back a few
years and they do run together. It did surprise me that there would
even be electrolytics of that low value in a tube circuit in those
functions.

Wheel invention... have you ever been a parent? Could anyone tell you
anything in the beginning? Books on the psychology of parenting are a
20th century phenomenon. Human nature is to gather theory from books
and general learning and practical experience from direct
participation. Example: Can you walk away from a "Wet Paint" sign
without checking?

Capitals: Holy Writ is not equal to holy writ. Much as Catholic is not
equal to catholic. And Proper Names of objects whether animate or not
demand capitals to be set off from generics.

Attitude: Yes, I find attitude to be an issue. And I find facts to be
quite lovely with or without a leavening of attitude. But I find that
using facts as a D9 high-wheel to bulldoze preference to be poisonous.
Example: I am quite aware of the limitations and imperfections of
vinyl. And tape. And badly handled CDs for that matter. But that does
not mean that I cannot and do not choose to listen to vinyl sometimes
with great pleasure. Or tape. Somehow badly handled CDs sound to me
like nails on a blackboard, so those get short shrift... as would any
similar medium causing the same reaction. But CDs *seem* to be more-so
that way.

Facts and Technical Underpinning:

There was a school of scientists who used Fetal Recapitulation as
proof positive that there was no Creation in the biblical sense and no
God. Another school offered it exactly as absolute proof as only God
could create so elegant a process. And as a funny aside, neither
school addressed the place of recapitulation as it applies (might
apply) to evolutionary theory. In either case, the facts of
recapitulation were not at issue. What they meant were.

Objectivists and Subjectivists:

If (you may choose not to accept this analogy, of course) Human Beings
are omniverous hunter-gatherers, consider Hunters and Gatherers.
Hunters spend much of their time focused on the north end of a south-
bound deer in order to kill it and eat it. Success is measured by the
size of the belly just now. Gatherers tend to have relationships with
their food in order to learn its habits, behaviors, locations, uses,
dangers... Success is measured by the number of days survival is
assured. Does that look even a little bit like the relationship
between Objectivists and Subjectivists?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.













..

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world.

All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.

Evidently you are not familiar with Clarke's Laws.

Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world.

People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws and
principles to stop them in their tracks.

I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information.

Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.

As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things.

Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.

Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[George M. Middius]

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 7, 2:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.

Nah, just general rudeness.

Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing them?

Sure. No problem there.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Jenn]

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

I was biting my tongue.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

I was biting my tongue.

Arnii used to boast about being a hypocrite. He bought into the delusion
that hanging around a church on Sundays washed away his ****tiness.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately
establish cause and effect.

Damned straight.

There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.


There's an axiom about audiophiles and their wives' hearing in there somewhere.

Anyway, given the effects you think you heard, do you suppose they could have
been meausured? I'm thinking 'tubbier bass' must manifest in a frequency spectrum
analysis of the output.


Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Again, you drew a cause and effect conclusion without actually
testing the hypothesis rigorously. You mgith be right, that those
caps made a real, audible difference. But you certainly haven't ruled out
other possible causes, some of which are entirely psychiological.

I presume from what you've written previously, though, that you're willing
to admit you might have been imagining the improvement -- right?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.


All scientific facts are provisional. If you understand what science is, you understand
that. And further, it's better for scientific claims to be testable, than not. And untestable
claim about hte natural world is arguably not scientific at all.

However, it isn't possible to *personally* test every scientific fact -- nor necessary
to reinvent the wheel every day. So, does that make belief in any given
fact, an example of accepting 'holy writ' (I refuse to indulge your passion for
capitalization, sorry).


So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

And what, in audio, cannot be 'tested and proven'?



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 7, 4:49 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:





On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately
establish cause and effect.
Damned straight.
There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.
As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

There's an axiom about audiophiles and their wives' hearing in there somewhere.

Anyway, given the effects you think you heard, do you suppose they could have
been meausured? I'm thinking 'tubbier bass' must manifest in a frequency spectrum
analysis of the output.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Again, you drew a cause and effect conclusion without actually
testing the hypothesis rigorously. You mgith be right, that those
caps made a real, audible difference. But you certainly haven't ruled out
other possible causes, some of which are entirely psychiological.

I presume from what you've written previously, though, that you're willing
to admit you might have been imagining the improvement -- right?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am sure that the improvement is measurable. And if not, I would be
the first to admit that it could well be my imagination. Some
artifacts are pretty subtle, and so may be around the margins of
measurability. These were definitely definite to my hearing... so well
"inside" the margins. If not measurable then imagined for sure given
my perceived difference.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
I am sure that the improvement is measurable. And if not, I would be
the first to admit that it could well be my imagination. Some
artifacts are pretty subtle, and so may be around the margins of
measurability. These were definitely definite to my hearing... so well
"inside" the margins. If not measurable then imagined for sure given
my perceived difference.

Thank you. Now, imagine if all the people Arny argues with, were
willing to make such a forthright admission.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 8, 1:51 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Thank you. Now, imagine if all the people Arny argues with, were
willing to make such a forthright admission.

Gold double-eagles to Krispy-Kreme donuts it would not make a damned
bit of difference to Mr. Krueger. Unless and until he were given the
last word.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Sep, 22:21, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?



Arny, you should know better than anyone else, **** flows downhill.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or
have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be.

OK, let's see whose ox gets gored by that criteria?

Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go).

Futhermore, every engineering student has personally done numerous
experiements that tested Newton's laws. Therefore according to your
definition Peter, Newton's Laws are not holy writ, at least for your typical
graduate engineer.

It turns out that if you do any serious study of communications engineering,
you will probably do lab experiments that are based on Information Theory.
Therefore according to your definition Peter, Information Theory and
Shannon's Law is not holy writ, at least for people such as myself who have
been engaged in detailed study of them.


And then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.

Wrong again. Einstein's adjustements to Newton's laws were not arrived at by
questioning Newton's laws. The fact that there are relativistic adjustements
to Newton's laws comes from the fact that Relativity is an adjustment to
time and space, and Newton's laws are based on time and space being
constant.

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world.

All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and
principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.

Evidently you are not familiar with Clarke's Laws.

LOL! I read a fair amout of Clarke's work when the ink was hardly dry.
However Peter, you cite of Clarke's laws in the midst of a discusison of
scientific laws and theories such as Newton's, Einstein's, and Shannons'
shows that you don't know the difference between science and science
fiction.

Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world.

People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws
and
principles to stop them in their tracks.

Peter has no response.

I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this?

Your own interposition of the concept of "Holy Writ" in the midst of a
discussion that was started, based on, and ended with a discussion of
Shannon;s Information Theory.

Again, it may be tested and proven.

Doing so is simply a good lab exercise for people who are seriously studying
communications.

As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

So what?

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information.

Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.

Peter has no response.

As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things.

Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.

Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself on
these topics.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

s.com...

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or
have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine,
not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy
Writ"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.


All scientific facts are provisional. If you understand what science is,
you understand
that. And further, it's better for scientific claims to be testable, than
not. And untestable
claim about hte natural world is arguably not scientific at all.

However, it isn't possible to *personally* test every scientific fact --
nor necessary
to reinvent the wheel every day. So, does that make belief in any given
fact, an example of accepting 'holy writ' (I refuse to indulge your
passion for
capitalization, sorry).


So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

And what, in audio, cannot be 'tested and proven'?

Taking a slight liberty with your obvious meaning Steven: ;-)

Many of the claims in the High End audio press, editorial and advertising
simply defy being tested and proven. A tremendous number of the claims of
audible differences, even profound audible differences, similarly defy being
tested and proven.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Fun Tyme]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Many of the claims in the High End audio press, editorial and advertising
simply defy being tested and proven. A tremendous number of the claims of
audible differences, even profound audible differences, similarly defy being
tested and proven.




These improbable intangibles occur in all religions.

[Mr.T]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.


The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.


MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself
on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Sorry Peter, but claiming to read minds is not one of my faults. If you've
got something to say - say it.

[Arny Krueger]

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

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.


The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.

Agreed. This recent interchange with Wieck has been quite disturbing - I had
more respect for him in the very recent past.