May 16th 05, 03:14 PM
from a more intelligent part of Usenet:
David Satz wrote:
> Arny, I listened to the mp3 file and was amazed at several logical
> U-turns that Mr. Atkinson took during the debate, without once
> acknowledging that he was abandoning what he had said just a moment
> before. I heard his effort to present himself as the reasonable man,
so
> innocently unable to see why anyone would question his views--and I
> also heard his repeated use of "we" and "our," not with reference to
> his magazine, but referring to "our industry" which he was defending.
>
> He made an enormous, unjustified leap from point A to point Q--point
A
> being "I A/B'ed a pair of power amplifiers; they sounded the same to
me
> in the A/B test, but after living with each of them for six months,
> they didn't feel the same to me" while point Q = "Therefore, all
> controlled tests are useless and irrelevant."
>
> Even when no audible difference is detected between two amplifiers in
a
> particular A/B test with particular listeners and loudspeakers, of
> course those same amplifiers might still sound different if, for
> example, a markedly different speaker load is applied to them, and/or
> program material with different dynamics or spectral balance. It
> doesn't take a degree in physics to realize that.
>
> When he realized that the two amplifiers gave him different feelings
in
> his home over time, he showed no evident interest in finding out
> whether his changed feelings were [a] in fact due to changing between
> the amplifiers at all (!) or [b] if so, whether any particular,
> identifiable engineering issue might account for the difference in
> feelings so produced. That's truly sad--after a whole year of
> listening, he wasted his opportunity to learn something meaningful,
and
> instead drew a bogus (but financially very profitable) conclusion.
>
> Someone here compared this debate to evolution versus creationism.
> Maybe a better analogy would be to a geocentric viewpoint versus a
> heliocentric viewpoint on the solar system. I doubt that anyone here
> can really "prove" that the Earth revolves around the sun; on the
> contrary, it is the everyday experience of every sighted person on
this
> planet that the sun and moon revolve around the Earth. If we hadn't
> studied science and history, anyone who tried to tell us that our
> senses were fooling us would seem foolish or crazy.
>
> As rational adults, at least where astronomy is concerned, most of us
> accept nowadays that our senses and feelings don't always lead us
> directly to the truth--that there are entirely valid reasons why
> something may seem one way and yet be another way in fact. The
question
> is whether we wish to have an open mind about other areas of
experience
> that might follow a similar pattern. That isn't necessarily pleasing
to
> the ego, unless one's ego is peculiarly invested in one's loyalty to
> truth and reason.
>
> --best regards
David Satz wrote:
> Arny, I listened to the mp3 file and was amazed at several logical
> U-turns that Mr. Atkinson took during the debate, without once
> acknowledging that he was abandoning what he had said just a moment
> before. I heard his effort to present himself as the reasonable man,
so
> innocently unable to see why anyone would question his views--and I
> also heard his repeated use of "we" and "our," not with reference to
> his magazine, but referring to "our industry" which he was defending.
>
> He made an enormous, unjustified leap from point A to point Q--point
A
> being "I A/B'ed a pair of power amplifiers; they sounded the same to
me
> in the A/B test, but after living with each of them for six months,
> they didn't feel the same to me" while point Q = "Therefore, all
> controlled tests are useless and irrelevant."
>
> Even when no audible difference is detected between two amplifiers in
a
> particular A/B test with particular listeners and loudspeakers, of
> course those same amplifiers might still sound different if, for
> example, a markedly different speaker load is applied to them, and/or
> program material with different dynamics or spectral balance. It
> doesn't take a degree in physics to realize that.
>
> When he realized that the two amplifiers gave him different feelings
in
> his home over time, he showed no evident interest in finding out
> whether his changed feelings were [a] in fact due to changing between
> the amplifiers at all (!) or [b] if so, whether any particular,
> identifiable engineering issue might account for the difference in
> feelings so produced. That's truly sad--after a whole year of
> listening, he wasted his opportunity to learn something meaningful,
and
> instead drew a bogus (but financially very profitable) conclusion.
>
> Someone here compared this debate to evolution versus creationism.
> Maybe a better analogy would be to a geocentric viewpoint versus a
> heliocentric viewpoint on the solar system. I doubt that anyone here
> can really "prove" that the Earth revolves around the sun; on the
> contrary, it is the everyday experience of every sighted person on
this
> planet that the sun and moon revolve around the Earth. If we hadn't
> studied science and history, anyone who tried to tell us that our
> senses were fooling us would seem foolish or crazy.
>
> As rational adults, at least where astronomy is concerned, most of us
> accept nowadays that our senses and feelings don't always lead us
> directly to the truth--that there are entirely valid reasons why
> something may seem one way and yet be another way in fact. The
question
> is whether we wish to have an open mind about other areas of
experience
> that might follow a similar pattern. That isn't necessarily pleasing
to
> the ego, unless one's ego is peculiarly invested in one's loyalty to
> truth and reason.
>
> --best regards