Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] outsor@city-net.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

some people have hastened to suggest that there is a sharp divide
concerning the use of science vs. subjective belief systems in audio. I
would be happy to see one subjective audio "reviewer" and fellow traveler
marketing dept. who don't turn to asserted scientific validation as
quickly as they do to reporting of their perceptual events when listening
to some bit of gear and what sonic delight will follow the purchase of
same.. This can be as simple as suggesting that the speed of woofer
movement makes for "fast" bass or the need to inhibit vibration in solid
state audio amps.

The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.
Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science. We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. If
the object said to be the source of the perception event is inserted and
removed without the listeners knowledge and the perception effect can not
be shown beyond chance to track accordingly, a simple bit of deduction
best describes the outcome.

We need not appeal to what science is violated in the reported source of
the perception event at all nor show the claimed but not previously
demonstrated science evoked by the subjective event reporter is not
substantuated.

We need not know anything at all about electronics or acoustics nor
psycho/perceptual matters. We need only to show that the reported
perception event doesn't track the presence or not of the bit of audio
gear said to be it's source.


If it does not track the matter is settled, if it does then turning to
science makes sense least we get our cart before the horse.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
C. Leeds C. Leeds is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

wrote:

The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.
Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.


Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire as a straw man example,
but you cite no reference for your claims. Since you say these things
happen "almost with exception," it should be easy for you to provide
specific examples for discussion.

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science.


Are you also expecting special exemption from documenting your other
claims, such as about $3,000 per foot wire?

We need only request simple common sense and simple logic. If
the object said to be the source of the perception event is inserted and
removed without the listeners knowledge and the perception effect can not
be shown beyond chance to track accordingly, a simple bit of deduction
best describes the outcome.

We need not appeal to what science is violated in the reported source of
the perception event at all nor show the claimed but not previously
demonstrated science evoked by the subjective event reporter is not
substantuated.

We need not know anything at all about electronics or acoustics nor
psycho/perceptual matters. We need only to show that the reported
perception event doesn't track the presence or not of the bit of audio
gear said to be it's source.


If it does not track the matter is settled, if it does then turning to
science makes sense least we get our cart before the horse.

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

more high-priced cables:

Siltech Empress Crown Interconnect $17,550/meter
Siltech Emperor Crown Speaker Cable: $20,400/meter
http://www.element-acoustics.ca/Product/siltech.html

Nordost Odin Speaker Cable ~$24,000/meter
"If you are looking for a fairly subtle improvement from Odin you'll be
wrong. The differences are massive..

Alvin Gold
Hi-Fi Choice, The Collection 2007 "

http://www.nordost.com/index.php?id=855

--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

On Jul 22, 7:22 pm, "C. Leeds" wrote:
Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire
as a straw man example, but you cite no
reference for your claims.


Hardly a strawman, and examples are trivially
easy to find.

Check out reviews on Stereophile's website: consider
Tara Labs "The Zero Interconnect" at a mere $14,900
a pair for 1 meter lengths. Now, that's not EXACTLY
$3000/ft, but at $2257/ft, that's well in the ballpark.

The manufacturers description is a collection of
techno buzzwords, irrelevant, vague and undefined
terms "MIL spec precision, for example), and wild,
glowin claims, e.g., "remarkably more open, airy
and ;lifelike..."

That's just one of MANY examples that are VERY easy
to find.

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:22:54 -0700, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Subject: Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?
From: "C. Leeds"
Date: Yesterday 4:22 PM
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

wrote:

The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.
Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.


Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire as a straw man example,
but you cite no reference for your claims. Since you say these things
happen "almost with exception," it should be easy for you to provide
specific examples for discussion.

We who are of the view that the source of the reported perception event
likely lies in the brain and not the object need not even evoke any
science.


Are you also expecting special exemption from documenting your other
claims, such as about $3,000 per foot wire?


I'm not sure that I understand your objection. Are you saying that IS no
$3000/ft wire? While that may, indeed be a bit of a hyperbole, I do know for
a fact that a company named Nordost sells a pair of 1-meter long
interconnects called the "Valhallas" that are $4000. So the notion of a pair
of interconnects or a speaker cable that sells for $3000/ft wouldn't surprise
me.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

C. Leeds wrote:
wrote:


The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.
Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.


Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire as a straw man example,
but you cite no reference for your claims. Since you say these things
happen "almost with exception," it should be easy for you to provide
specific examples for discussion.


Will $1K/ft do?

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

Pear Anjou Speaker Cable
3 foot pair - $2750


"Highly Recommended..

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to
be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing
through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or
desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace.these cables smack that
right on the nose big time."
Dave Clark

- Dave Clark, Editor Positive Feedback Online



If you ever need another example of sheer audiophile silliness, please
remember this quote.



--
-S
A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles"
(1748)

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"?

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:38:24 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

C. Leeds wrote:
wrote:


The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.

Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.


Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire as a straw man example,
but you cite no reference for your claims. Since you say these things
happen "almost with exception," it should be easy for you to provide
specific examples for discussion.


Will $1K/ft do?

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

Pear Anjou Speaker Cable
3 foot pair - $2750


"Highly Recommended..

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to
be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing
through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or
desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace.these cables smack that
right on the nose big time."
Dave Clark

- Dave Clark, Editor Positive Feedback Online



If you ever need another example of sheer audiophile silliness, please
remember this quote.


And this guy hails from what galaxy? "Danceable cables" eh? Put on Mozart's
"Requiem Mass" with these cables in the system and you want to boogie?
Doesn't sound like something that I'd brag about!
  #8   Report Post  
Angus Stewart Pinkerton Angus Stewart Pinkerton is offline
Junior Member
 
Location: Rempstone, Leicestershire, England
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonnova View Post
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:38:24 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

C. Leeds wrote:
wrote:


The $3000 wire folk turn to pulling the cloak of science about their
sholders by offering that skin effect or quantum electron alignment or
some such the source of the reported perception events the item is said to
produce. They will even give us numbers and pretty graphs to that effect.

Almost without exception a reviewer will include such marketing blurbs as
the proported science underlying the perception effect if they have none
of their own to offer.


Again, you trot out your $3,000 per foot wire as a straw man example,
but you cite no reference for your claims. Since you say these things
happen "almost with exception," it should be easy for you to provide
specific examples for discussion.


Will $1K/ft do?

http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm

Pear Anjou Speaker Cable
3 foot pair - $2750


"Highly Recommended..

"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to
be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing
through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or
desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace.these cables smack that
right on the nose big time."
Dave Clark

- Dave Clark, Editor Positive Feedback Online



If you ever need another example of sheer audiophile silliness, please
remember this quote.


And this guy hails from what galaxy? "Danceable cables" eh? Put on Mozart's
"Requiem Mass" with these cables in the system and you want to boogie?
Doesn't sound like something that I'd brag about!
Indeed so, and more to the point, I believe there still exists a pool of money approaching $10,000 payable to *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in a level-matched blind test. Must have been on offer for about ten years now, with not one single person even taking up the challenge.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do we need science in subjective audio "reviewing"? [email protected] High End Audio 23 July 24th 08 12:40 AM
The final nail in the coffin for subjective reviewing ? Eeyore Pro Audio 11 November 7th 07 02:20 PM
How Sullivan's speaks for "science" without permission. [email protected] Audio Opinions 1 February 3rd 06 06:01 AM
"AKAI", "KURZWEIL", "ROLAND", DVDs and CDs [email protected] Audio Opinions 0 January 31st 06 10:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"