Stupie Sillyborg on audio purchases

[George Middius]

Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.

>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
>aren't really relying on your ears.

This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes purchase
decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.

I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.

[Gareth Magennis]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.
>
>>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
>>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
>>aren't really relying on your ears.
>
> This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
> purchase
> decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.
>
> I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
> supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.
>


This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
proof etc".

Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
persuit. It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.

How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.
All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.
Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
we want it to agree with such observations.

So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
going to win this argument.




Gareth.

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> going to win this argument.

My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
hypocrite.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Sillyborg has a big grudge against ears.
> >
> >>But I hope it doesn't ruin your day to be
> >>reminded, again, that when you do a sighted comparison, you
> >>aren't really relying on your ears.
> >
> > This is laughable coming from somebody who, by his own admission, makes
> > purchase
> > decisions based exclusively on spec sheets and price.
> >
> > I hope you grasp the effect that admission has on your bleating about the
> > supposed value of "tests", Sillyborg.
> >


> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
> resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

er..scientists *are* objectivists

> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
> only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
> then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
> again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
> proof etc".

> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
> they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
> scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
> persuit.

Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
'feels' right, is the right one.

> It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
> scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well be
> unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
> them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.

Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
is true.

> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond me.

Apparently.

> All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to
> agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its existance.

And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?

> Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining if
> we want it to agree with such observations.

Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
require revision of current models to explain --
it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.

> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> going to win this argument.

Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
for the 'objectivist' skepticism.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Gareth Magennis said:

> > So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are never
> > going to win this argument.

> My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> hypocrite.

For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?
That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.



--

-S

[George M. Middius]

Sillyborg stuttered:

> > My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> > hypocrite.

> For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?

Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
limit of your understanding.

> That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

> Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
> mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.

Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
pecuniousness and/or penury.

3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
density of your ossified mind)

4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Sillyborg stuttered:

> > > My point isn't that Sillyborg is "wrong", it's that he's a jerk and a
> > > hypocrite.

> > For buying gear based on objective factors -- such as features?

> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
> limit of your understanding.


Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
to be getting the attention.


> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.

> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.

It's not hypocritical, though.

> > Please, then, point out where the hypocrisy lies. I'm in the
> > mood to pull the wings off of bugs like you.

> Yes, do. Pull my wings off.

> I'm afraid your head is so far up your ass that you have no idea how
> stupid your "reasoning" is. I'll sum it up as concisely as I can:

Oh goody.

> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
ever understand and accept their rationale.
I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
Like, say, sexual intercourse?

> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
> pecuniousness and/or penury.

I certainly do care about the quality of my system. That's why I
didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features that I
specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
to, good sound. Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
processing, connectivity.

Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?
Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
A/V receiver on the market today."

N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
of audiophool species: the price snob.


> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
> density of your ossified mind)

These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
technology is mature, even if you aren't.

If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
And so would you.
But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
You, because you believe you can
depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
different from another.

I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
have a grasp on reality.


> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?

> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.


Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

They also want generally believe they'll live forever,
to think they're beautiful/handsome/popular, to think they are successful
and smart (including smart in their audio buying).

High-end marketing is happy to encourage them on all those counts except
perhaps price.

Now, what is the relation of what people *believe* about what they buy,
to the truth about what they buy? Is it always a one-to-one
correspondence? How do we know when it isn't?

'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.



--

-S

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message



> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never
> going to be resolved to eithers' satisfaction.

This is especially true since most audiophiles who throw
these terms around don't seem to know what the generally
accepted meanings of these words are. I pointed this out in
pretty good detail and by citing some pretty fair references
as part of my opening remarks at the HE2005 debate with John
Atkinson. While I didn't quite come right out and say it,
Atkinson tortured these words in the style of Saddam Hussein
in his publicity blurb for the debate.

> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in
> their terms, and only those terms that are currently
> known about qualify to be such terms, then such things
> are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
> again according to their own defined meaning of the words
> "false, true, proof etc".

That would be sheerist BS. Scientists have literally
centuries of experience dealing with things that they can't
fully explain.One of the most if not the most fundamental
rules of science is that any particular explanation is
provisional, and only valid until it is falsified. The
falsification of long-standing beliefs is very common in
Science. Furthermore, beliefs that are in essence falsified
continue to have valid applications in broad areas of
scientific endeavor.

> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they
> just know what they experience and don't know how to
> explain it in currently known scientific terms, or they
> simply aren't that interested in this intellectual
> persuit.

This would also be sheerist BS. So-called audio
objectivists are just people who are more comfortable
applying a fairly small and simple requirements to their
observations and beliefs. For example most so-called
objectivists affirm the validity of bias-controlled
listening tests. The whole idea of bias-controlled listening
tests is simple and common-sense. The basic idea of bias
controlled listening tests is that relevant influences that
are not directly related to hearing be managed in a
reasoanble way during the listening test. Furthermore, a
listening test is kind of a subjective evaluation, and if
objectivists were really the narrow fools that certain
people like to make them out to be, they should have no
interest in subjective evaluations of *any* kind. But these
so-called objectivists are quite interested and involved in
subjective evaluations, which brings the very fact that they
are called *objectivists* by some into question. Why are
these *objectivists* so interested and involved in
*subjective* evaluations? Perhaps they are not
*objectivists* at all but some kind of *subjectivist* after
all?

> It must be very frustrating for them to be
> confronted by scientists demanding that they explain
> themselves in terms that may well be unexplainable at the
> present.

As I explained just a few paragraphs back this is a straw
man argument based on Gareth's poor understanding of audio
objectivists and science itself.

> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be
> "true" is beyond me.

Well, now we get down to Gareth's *real* problem. He doesn't
really believe in anything at all. He seems to doubt that
anybody can believe anything.

> All that can really be shown,
> surely, is that an obsevation does not seem to agree with
> the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
> existance.

This ignores the converse possibility that an observation
can agree with a model or hypothesis. In the real world, as
opposed to Gerth's world of constant disagrement,
observations may or may not agree with a hypothesis.

[Gareth Magennis]

Sorry, my mistake, I meant Subjectivist, not Objectivist.

[Gareth Magennis]

>> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
>> resolved to eithers' satisfaction.
>
> er..scientists *are* objectivists
>


My mistake - I meant of course Subjectivists




>> Scientists insist that unless things can be explained in their terms, and
>> only those terms that are currently known about qualify to be such terms,
>> then such things are either imaginary, or "magic" or some other falsity,
>> again according to their own defined meaning of the words "false, true,
>> proof etc".
>
>> Ojectivists, on the other hand, are not scientists - they just know what
>> they experience and don't know how to explain it in currently known
>> scientific terms, or they simply aren't that interested in this
>> intellectual
>> persuit.
>
> Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
> means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
> ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
> assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
> 'feels' right, is the right one.
>



My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
"wrong".
Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
concepts.


Gareth..









>> It must be very frustrating for them to be confronted by
>> scientists demanding that they explain themselves in terms that may well
>> be
>> unexplainable at the present. However, they do know how things are for
>> them. Which is about all any of us can really know anyway.
>
> Except, that's NOT true, otherwise technology wouldn't work, including
> the technology that allowed you to post this message. It isn't true
> that everything people believe is true, is equally likely to be true.
> Science is a method for testing models about the real world, to see
> if they are accurate. It's worked rather spectacularly well so far.
> It wouldn't work at all if all that was true, is what you *believe*
> is true.
>
>> How anyone can believe that anything can be shown to be "true" is beyond
>> me.
>
> Apparently.
>

>> All that can really be shown, surely, is that an obsevation does not seem
>> to
>> agree with the model, or hypothesis, that attempts to explain its
>> existance.
>
> And do you imaigne that model came out of nowhere?
>
>> Which means only that the current model could do with a little refining
>> if
>> we want it to agree with such observations.
>
> Indeed. But the observation that two things are *perceived* to
> sound different in a sighted comparision, simply doesn't
> require revision of current models to explain --
> it is in fact *predicted* to be likely, from those current models.
>
>> So why don't you all just get over it and agree to disagree, you are
>> never
>> going to win this argument.
>
> Well, it would help if people like you actually understood the rationale
> for the 'objectivist' skepticism.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -S

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
:

> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
....

you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
actually works.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
6.1...
> Hello Gareth,
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :
>
>> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
>> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
>> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
> ...
>
> you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
> subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics.
> Instead
> we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
> new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
> It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
> man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
> we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years
> away,
> accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
> things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
> actually works.
>
> Bye,
>
> --
> Denis Sbragion
> InfoTecna
> Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
> URL: http://www.infotecna.it


I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking about how
people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
happening. And I believe that as we progess we will discover, as man always
has done, new ways of modelling or attempting to explain what is going on.
And maybe there will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding
that knocks every current theory on its head. That is the nature of
science. The theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory
as the opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of which
could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to believe that
right now we have everything worked out the way we would like it to be. We
are constantly learning, changing our views, discovering new ways of
thinking. I am saying be open to all possibilities, not be blinkered by
thinking we know it all now.


Gareth.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Gareth,

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
:

> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we

mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
available evidence.

> progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
> modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
> will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
> every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
> theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
> opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
> conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
> which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
> believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
> like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
> discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
> possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.

The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio? I
don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
disagree.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
6.1...
> Hello Gareth,
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
>> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
>> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
>> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
>> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
>
> mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> available evidence.
>

But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
and experience of the Audiophile.



>> progess we will discover, as man always has done, new ways of
>> modelling or attempting to explain what is going on. And maybe there
>> will some time soon be some paradigm leap in understanding that knocks
>> every current theory on its head. That is the nature of science. The
>> theory that matter arises from mind is just as valid a theory as the
>> opposite theory most people hold to. There are sll sorts of
>> conflicting theorys out there, all sorts of odd philosophies, any of
>> which could be more valid than any other. I just don't happen to
>> believe that right now we have everything worked out the way we would
>> like it to be. We are constantly learning, changing our views,
>> discovering new ways of thinking. I am saying be open to all
>> possibilities, not be blinkered by thinking we know it all now.
>
> The way people react to science, paradigm leaps, nature of science,
> something that knocks every (!?!) current theory, odd philosophies,
> everything (!?!) worked out, and so on. Are we still talking about audio?
> I
> don't think so. I don't even think we're talking about science.
> BTW, I agree with you: we have to just get over it and agree to
> disagree.
>


Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
agree to disagree.


Gareth.





> Bye,
>
> --
> Denis Sbragion
> InfoTecna
> Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
> URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >> This debate between Scientists and Objectivists is never going to be
> >
> > Just becuase *they* can't explain it by 'known scientific terms', hardly
> > means it *can't be* explained by such terms. Often 'they' are simply
> > ignorant of the available plausible explanations; instead they simply
> > assume that whatever 'explanation' they come up with, because it
> > 'feels' right, is the right one.
> >



> My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.

No, it doesn't imply that. All scientific explanations are provisional.
All *you* need to do is provide scientific evidence of equal power, that the
current explanation is the wrong one.

Invoking subjective feelings isn't scientific evidence.

> You are basing your
> explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as yet
> unknown, why current "knowledge" about listening to music is going to look
> pretty archaic and silly some hundred years from now, yet the general trait
> amongst scientists is to ignore this possibility and constantly say things
> like "we now know that ...." so that automatically makes oposing opinions
> "wrong".

This is a hugely flawed line of reasoning. It says that because not everything
is known, then nothing is known. It says that because one can imagine
another answer, then all answers are equally likely. It says that because
something *might* be wrong (or right), then all things are equally likely
to be wrong (or right).

Of course, if either of these two ideas were true, then we would have
NO technology, for one thing.

> Science is not about "knowing" anything at all, it is only about trying to
> make hypotheses fit observations, until they no longer fit and aother
> hypothesis has to be generated. Therefore it can never be judged to be
> saying anything at all about how things really are, be it the nature of
> Deep Space or whether there is something that happens or doesn't happen in
> controlled experiments that doesn't happen or happens when things aren't
> actually being tested. It is simply an incorrect model to be changed and
> updated when necessary. There is no such thing as something being "true",
> except in the mind of a scientist who needs to have a belief in such
> concepts.

You were right except for the last phrase of the last sentence. A
scienctific fact isn't true *just* for the individual scientist who
believes it. It should be demonstrably true to any other person
who repeats the observation under the same conditions.
That's what makes it science. There are not different scientific
facts in India versus Canada versus the US.

Btw, if there is no scientific 'knowing' then by the same criterion
there is no 'knowing' at all. This suggests that one needs to
adjust the definition of 'knowing' so that it means something.
It's not sufficient to say that introspection leads to one
determining how things 'really are' -- this is simply another
form of model building.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Denis Sbragion > wrote:
> Hello Gareth,

> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :

> > My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> > scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> > possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
> > explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> > fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
> ...

> you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
> subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
> we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
> new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
> It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
> man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
> we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
> accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
> things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
> actually works.

Well, we don't *really* know if the moon is actually
green cheese, or whether it's 'real' at all.

I mean, by Gareth's logic.

Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;>

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
> 6.1...
> > Hello Gareth,
> >
> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
> >
> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> > available evidence.
> >

> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the reality
> and experience of the Audiophile.

The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
model of reality.

Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
not to shake his faith one tiny bit.

Is this rational?

All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
Not *everything* one can believe, is true.


> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other they
> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful to
> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
> agree to disagree.


Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
the listener *heard* them as different.

Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
turned out to be *lucky guesses*.


--

-S

[George Middius]

The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.

>> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
>> limit of your understanding.

>Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
>to be getting the attention.

I’ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.

BTW, I’ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)


>> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
>> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
>> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
>> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.
>
>> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.
>
>It's not hypocritical, though.

It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only “tests”
can tell you how something sounds, but you don’t do any yourself. Where’s the
honesty? Where’s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)


>> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
>> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
>> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

>Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
>perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
>ever understand and accept their rationale.

That’s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
know what the “tests” in question are really like until you’ve actually done
them.)

>I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
>doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

That doesn’t count because it’s only practice, not real. You have zero
experience and zero knowledge of your precious “tests”.

In my view, there’s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You’re
not motivated to discover the truth because you don’t care at all how any system
sounds.

>Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
>haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
>Like, say, sexual intercourse?

Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.

>> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
>> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
>> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
>> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
>> pecuniousness and/or penury.
>
>I certainly do care about the quality of my system.

No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
times.

>That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
>that I
>specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
>to, good sound.

You don’t mean “includes good sound”. You mean “regardless of how it sounds”.
You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.

I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
different ways. I’ve listened to a lot of different brands and I’ve owned a
couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It’s not
at all difficult to hear differences among them.

But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
mail-ordered. You are a robot.

> Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
>amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
>processing, connectivity.

Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
they’re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn’t know any of
this because you didn’t bother to find out.

The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
store is “robot”. That’s you, Sillybot.

>Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
>eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
>one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?

Hey, that’s better than low-end. I’ll bet it sounds decent.

BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don’t hear something is
idiotic. You da ‘bot!

>Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
>first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
>A/V receiver on the market today."

Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.

>N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
>had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
>marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
>of audiophool species: the price snob.

Hardly™. You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I’m as pecunious as
anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

>> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
>> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
>> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
>> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
>> density of your ossified mind)
>
>These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
>*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
>level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
>performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
>technology is mature, even if you aren't.

But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
separate preamp would be? If so, you’re the most ignorant robot ever.

>If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
>underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
>And so would you.

0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!

>But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
>You, because you believe you can
>depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
>are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
>be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
>that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
>different from another.

This is truly twisted. You’re a pervbot.

>I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
>to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
>I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
>actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
>have a grasp on reality.

Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
cost a few bucks, but it’ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.

>> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
>> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
>> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?
>
>> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.
>
>
>Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
>they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?

>'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
>less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
>just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
>appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.

You don’t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?

I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.

> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> devices
> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> between them.
> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.

Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.

> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> because
> the listener *heard* them as different.

The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?

Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
severely attenuated.

> Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
> don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear
> doesn;t
> emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
> turned out to be *lucky guesses*.

Agreed. Things like the Space Shuttle and farily reliable
cures for once-fatal cancers are in some sense the "ultimate
truth".

Useful stuff like Flash USB storage doesn't work because of
favorable reviewer opinions.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Steven,

Steven Sullivan > wrote in
:

> Try to keep an open mind, will you? ;>

no, not with this meaning of "open". I'm quite confident (which is quite
different from having "faith") that science has found a way to describe the
reality that is reliable enough for most of our needs, so I stick with it.
To tell the whole truth I'm even a bit reluctant to use the word
"science" when applied to audio. For the most part audio is just proper
application of well known scientific facts, so probably the word
"technology" is more adequate than "science" when talking about it.
Does this means that I have a closed mind? Don't know, but I wonder
if audio deserves so much "philosophycal" discussion about it. For me it's
just a matter of reproducing what's on records with as much accuracy as
possible. That's just because I have great respect for the artists and
their work, so I hate to have it modified by my audio system. So far I saw
no better way to ensure accuracy than relying on technology and, when
needed, science, at least as I know it, which is no different than your
intepretation.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
>> 6.1...
>> > Hello Gareth,
>> >
>> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
>> > :
>> >
>> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
>> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
>> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
>> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
>> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
>> >
>> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
>> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
>> > available evidence.
>> >
>
>> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
>> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
>> reality
>> and experience of the Audiophile.
>
> The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
> model of reality.
>
> Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
> illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
> not to shake his faith one tiny bit.
>
> Is this rational?
>

It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.
And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.



> All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
> Not *everything* one can believe, is true.
>
>
>> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
>> they
>> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
>> to
>> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
>> agree to disagree.
>
>
> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
> the listener *heard* them as different.
>
> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>


Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
each other.




> Not everything is just a 'difference of opinion'. Planes
> don't fly , computers don't crunch data, audio gear doesn;t
> emit sound, simply because the 'opinions' of the designers
> turned out to be *lucky guesses*.
>
>
> --
>
> -S

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> And I
> think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> you are in.

Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

> And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> each other.

Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.

You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
which cable was connected.

Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
*really* trust their ears.

Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
back your opinion. That's how science works.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:28:59 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> wrote:

>I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff.

No, you'd just like to pretend that it is, in order to cook up some
fanciful theory to justify your own prejudice. There's a century of
scientific investigation that says you're wrong.

> We are talking about how
>people react with science, and I think it is little understood. We are
>talking about people experiencing differences between different cables but
>there being no scientific explanation or experimental proof of this
>happening.

There is *lots* of explanation of why people *imagine* such
differences, there is *zero* likelihood that they really exist.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
> I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>
> > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > devices
> > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > between them.
> > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
> Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>
> > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > because
> > the listener *heard* them as different.
>
> The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>
> > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>
> Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> severely attenuated.

I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
for bragging about his high-priced amps.

BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>
>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>
>I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>
>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>> devices
>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>> between them.
>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>
>Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>
>> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
>> because
>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>
>The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.

It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
similarly fooled.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >
> >> "Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
> >> 6.1...
> >> > Hello Gareth,
> >> >
> >> > "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> >> > :
> >> >
> >> >> I disagree, I think this is a leading edge stuff. We are talking
> >> >> about how people react with science, and I think it is little
> >> >> understood. We are talking about people experiencing differences
> >> >> between different cables but there being no scientific explanation or
> >> >> experimental proof of this happening. And I believe that as we
> >> >
> >> > mhhh, better to say that there's an explanation that audiophiles don't
> >> > like. To me instead that explanation fits perfectly the reality and the
> >> > available evidence.
> >> >
> >
> >> But just the opposite holds true as well -.just as the explanation fits
> >> perfectly the reality to you, so the explanation so does not fit the
> >> reality
> >> and experience of the Audiophile.
> >
> > The Audiophile has faith that subjective experience is an accurate
> > model of reality.
> >
> > Common evidence to the contrary -- sensory confusions like mirages and
> > illusions; cognitive confusions like errors of reason -- seem
> > not to shake his faith one tiny bit.
> >
> > Is this rational?
> >

> It may be perfectly rational to him, after all his music is sounding better.

But it may be only as 'real' as that mirage, or that *mistaken idea*.

Or are there *no* mistaken ideas, only 'personal truths'?

> And yes, the difference between him and yourself is that he believes that
> the experience he is experiencing is real whereas you are trying to tell him
> that what he is experiencing isn't what he is experiencing at all. That
> doesn't sound very rational either, it sounds impossible.

Wrong. I'm telling him that the *cause* that *he* has deduced
for his experience isn't *necessarily* what he believes it is.
A person stares at a cloud and experiences that it changes shape.
The person concludes that the cloud changed shape because he stared at it.
That's his personal idea of the 'truth' of the matter, but wouldn't you agree
that this line of reasoning is open to question, and that other
causes for the perceived shape change are not only plausible,
but perhaps even more likely to be true?

> > All 'realities' do not hold up equally well to examination and test.
> > Not *everything* one can believe, is true.> >
> >
> >> Yes, we are talking about Scientists and Audiophiles telling each other
> >> they
> >> are wrong simply because of a difference of opinion. It is not helpful
> >> to
> >> confuse opinion with fact, which is why the only option is, in fact, to
> >> agree to disagree.
> >
> >
> > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> >
> > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two devices
> > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference between them.
> > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> >
> > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different, because
> > the listener *heard* them as different.
> >
> > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> >


> Well no, that is a well known philosophical argument that cannot be proved
> either way. It is as much a theory as any other scientific theory. And I
> think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> you are in. And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> each other.


Yet the subjectivist will go on using an example of
the patent evidence that some 'realities' are 'universal' --
namely, his computer.

Remarkable.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


> Gareth Magennis said:

> > And I
> > think I am right in saying that a Subjectivist (got it right this time) is
> > the one who is saying that his reality is not necessarily the same one that
> > you are in.

> Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
the most tenuous grasp of logic.

> > And this is where you both will never be able to agree with
> > each other.

> Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
Enjoy yourselves.




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> >
> > I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> > orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
> >
> > > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > > devices
> > > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > > between them.
> > > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> >
> > Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> > Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
> >
> > > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > > because
> > > the listener *heard* them as different.
> >
> > The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
> >
> > > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> >
> > Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> > severely attenuated.

> I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
> for bragging about his high-priced amps.

> BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."

Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
outcome ;>





--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion George Middius > wrote:


> The redoubtable SillyBot impales himself on a spike of hypocrisy.

> >> Before I answer this, just assure me you're serious, that this is the
> >> limit of your understanding.

> >Oh, you'll answer anyway, I have no doubt. You're thrilled just
> >to be getting the attention.

> I?ll take that as a Yes to the serious question.

> BTW, I?ve demoted you from cyborg to robot. You earned it. ;-)

Yes, your little Napoleon hat fits you quite nicely. Feel free to
demote or promote at will, general.


> >> > That seem perfectly sensible given the patent flaws
> >> > of sighted comparison. And then for not making unqualified claims
> >> > about the sound? That too seems perfectly in line with what
> >> > I've advocated about claims from sighted comparison.
> >
> >> This is exemplary of the "jerk" part, Your High Exalted Jerkness.
> >
> >It's not hypocritical, though.

> It sure is hypocritical. You see, Silly, on the one hand you claim only ?tests?
> can tell you how something sounds, but you don?t do any yourself. Where?s the
> honesty? Where?s the integrity? Do I hear a flushing sound? ;-)


No, because generally I don't talk about how something sounded to
me, do I?


> >> 1. You rant on and on and on about "tests", but you've never performed
> >> any, never sat for any, and certainly never designed any. In short, you
> >> have zero experience and therefore, in my opinion, zero knowledge.

> >Your opinion is foolish, since it's foolish to insist that someone
> >perform standard scientific tests *themselves*, before they can
> >ever understand and accept their rationale.

> That?s still zero knowledge. (By knowledge I mean *direct* knowledge, not
> hypothetical understanding of what knowledgeable people have done. You cannot
> know what the ?tests? in question are really like until you?ve actually done
> them.)

If it were true that such 'direct' knowledge was the only valid basis
for accepting the rationale for a method, then it would be pointless
to cite scientific work. The only
allowable cites would be from those who actually have repeated the
particular experiment, which isn't what happens, of course.
Certainly actually *doing* it could *help* a dullard understand it, but
it's not *necessary*. Some people are smart enough to grasp
the facts and reasoning behind DBTs without actually doing them.

Btw, if your claims about 'real' knowlege were true,
it would also mean that *you* must acknowledge the validity of say,
Tom Nousaine or Arny Kruger's *direct* experience with gear DBTs.

And too, it would mean that your dismissal of my, or anyone's,
sound system and/or hearing abilities would be invalid,s ince you've
never experienced them firsthand.

Somehow, I don't see you doing either any time soon.

However, you ranting that it's 'zero knowlege' alas doesn't make it
true in the real world.



> >I have, however, performed DBTs of sound files, so your objection
> >doesn't even stand on *that* flimsy leg.

> That doesn?t count because it?s only practice, not real. You have zero
> experience and zero knowledge of your precious ?tests?.


Curious. How is doing a DBT only *practice* for doing a DBT? You're flailing
here, generalissimo.


> In my view, there?s no point in you actually participating in any tests. You?re
> not motivated to discover the truth because you don?t care at all how any system
> sounds.

Gosh, then why castigate me for not having done gear DBTs? You wouldn't believe my
results if I did.


> >Do you recognize the usefulness of ANY method or activity you
> >haven't personally experienced yourself, George?
> >Like, say, sexual intercourse?

> Did you make a joke, Silly? Better apply some WD40 to your rictus muscles.

I'll take that as a 'no', then.


> >> 2. It turns out you don't give a rat's ass about the quality of your
> >> system, which means your prattling about "tests" was simply empty
> >> posturing. Most likely, it was also a projection of your insecurity or
> >> fear of high-performance audio gear, and a shoddy rationalization of your
> >> pecuniousness and/or penury.
> >
> >I certainly do care about the quality of my system.

> No, all you care about is how much it cost. You said so yourself, two or three
> times.

No, I didn't say that. However, if you're going to simply lie about what I've written,
you'll make it back into my killfile that much faster.


> >That's why I didn't buy just any gear. I want it to deliver all the features
> >that I
> >specifically bought it for. This includes, but isn't confined
> >to, good sound.

> You don?t mean ?includes good sound?. You mean ?regardless of how it sounds?.
> You bought a commodity box without auditioning it.

I didn't audition in, true. But of course
if it had sounded broken to me when I heard it at home, I'd have
returned it. If DPL II hadn't functioned I'd have returned it. If the
ilink and USB inputs hadn't worked I'd have returned it. Etc.


> I have news for you, Sillybot: Low-end receivers sound crappy in various
> different ways. I?ve listened to a lot of different brands and I?ve owned a
> couple too. All low-priced electronics make serious compromises. They try to do
> well on one or two aspects of reproduction and they sacrifice the rest. It?s not
> at all difficult to hear differences among them.

Those 'differences' tend to amount to differences in ability to power different
loads at different levels before clipping. They don't tend to be
intrinsic differences about sound quality (ie, at matched levels, below clipping).

However, there's a few thousand dollars waiting for you, if you can
prove I'm wrong by demonstarting your ability to distinguish such amps.
Are you brave enough to claim it? I suspect not. You're a miserable
tinpot coward, generalissimo.

And of course, you *haven't* listened to the 56txi (which isn't considered
part of a 'low end' line by audiophile mags, including Stereophile),
nor, if you did, would your anecdotal reportage about its sound be worth
the pixels you wasted on it -- even if your review was positive.

> But you bought one without listening to any of them, even the one you
> mail-ordered. You are a robot.

Clearly, robots are smarter than 'normals'. ;>

> > Luckily that's rather a commodity as far as
> >amps are concerned. So then it becomes a matter of power, price,
> >processing, connectivity.

> Low-end receivers are commodities in that they perform a basic function, but
> they?re not interchangeable in terms of quality. But you wouldn?t know any of
> this because you didn?t bother to find out.

Actually, I did quite a bit of research to find this out.
I certainly don't claim complete 'interchangeability' in all dimenstions
of quality -- some are *built* better than others, for sure, and are likely to last longer;
some have more sophisticated features than others, etc -- but I'm rather
confident that the evidence points to *intrinsic differences in sound*
being rather a non-issue.

Then again, you can ask people who *have* had direct DBT experience
with amps even you would have to admit are 'high end'. Their
experience seems to contradict yours.

> The word for somebody who thinks that no audition at all is better than one in a
> store is ?robot?. That?s you, Sillybot.

'Robot, robot , robot' -- gracious,
*you* look like the one stuck in a loop, General G.

In-store audition for solid state gear would be fine, *if* one could
be sure to do it double blind , level-matched, with all other
gear the same. Lacking that, one might just as well buy without
audition. Nothing unreasonable about that. Of course, make
sure you have a money-back return guarantee either way.

In-store audition of speakers, even 'blind', would not likely
predict how the speakers would sound in one's own home, except
as regards gross differences (e.g. full-range vs satellite)
-- certainly not at the resolution that appears to matter to
'audiophiles', where 'subtle nuances' are everything.



> >Can you prove that the $1700 Pioneer 56txi -- the AVR I
> >eventually bought -- *doesn't* offer good sound? Or even
> >one objective reason why it *wouldn't*?

> Hey, that?s better than low-end. I?ll bet it sounds decent.

That's a good bet, but not for the reasons you think.

> BTW, your demand that somebody else prove you do or don?t hear something is
> idiotic. You da ?bot!

If I *did* make such a demand (and I haven't), it'd surely be no
more idiotic that your own spittle-flecked contributions to the
newsgroups.


> >Btw, the 'golden ear' Michael Fremer praised the 49tx -- the
> >first of the Pioneer Elite AVR line -- "one of the best, if not the best,
> >A/V receiver on the market today."

> Oh, so you do base your decision on subjective reviews. How hypocritical of you.

Sorry, general, but I happened upon Fremer's review long after I bought the gear (and btw,
he's talking abotu a different model, the 49tx). So it couldn't have
influenced me. However, a review that did
was the one in Sound & Vision of the 59txi, which described its
ilink capabilities and room correction features. I suspect David Ranada,
who did that review, would take the high quality of the sound as a given,
as he is an objectivist -- but they also helpfully included bench test
info to back that up.

So, again, my buying behavior is quite consistent with my recommendations,
general. So why the call to arms?


> >N.B. I'd certainly have bought a less expensive rig if it
> >had the same feature set. Your mention of 'penury and pecuniousness'
> >marks you as the most ludicrous (and easily fleeced)
> >of audiophool species: the price snob.

> Hardly?.
> You have no idea how much I paid for my stuff. I?m as pecunious as
> anybody, but I shop for bargains. Ask your hero Ferstler about this. He shares
> my philosophy, although he implements in the sleaziest way imaginable.

So, you're as pecunious as anybody?
Why, then, someone who is admittedly pecunious, would use that as a pejorative,
or assume its a sign of *penury*, is admittedly a question even my robot logic can't answer.
Unless it's that you're simply a *miserable creep*.


> >> 3. Your "objective factors" means you're lazy or half deaf or terribly
> >> undemanding. In any event, it definitely means you have no desire to
> >> actually distinguish one component from another because the sonic
> >> performance IS NOT EVEN A FACTOR FOR YOU. (shouting to overcome the
> >> density of your ossified mind)
> >
> >These aren't arguments, George, they're rants. Sonic performance
> >*is* a factor for amps, but the good news is, if you ran them
> >level-matched and with controls from bias in place, sonic
> >performance is likely to be at THE SAME high level. The
> >technology is mature, even if you aren't.

> But you bought a receiver, not an amplifier. Did you foolishly believe the
> preamp section of a receiver is somehow sonically transparent, more so than a
> separate preamp would be? If so, you?re the most ignorant robot ever.

Do you foolishly believe that preamps are likely to sound different
when auditioned with the proper controls in place? Permission to
disagree, SIR! Where's the evidence? Your own experience with
blind comparisons of preamps, perhaps?

The fact is, the supposed 'superiority' of high-end separates
may sometimes be measurable, sometimes audible, sometimes neither.


> >If I wanted to be *reliably sure* that my amp wasn't
> >underperforming sonically, I'd have to set up such a test.
> >And so would you.

> 0101011! 000111010, 001 1000011 00100110101101!

Garbage in, garbage out. ;>


> >But you aren't *really* that motivated, and neither am I.
> >You, because you believe you can
> >depend on your sighted listening to tell you whether two things
> >are sonically different -- when in fact it's easily shown to
> >be unreliable for that purpose. Me, because I accept
> >that one amp isn't likely to sound intrinsically
> >different from another.

> This is truly twisted. You?re a pervbot.

If reasoning annoys you, it's *got* to be good, clean fun.


> >I also accept that a perpetual motion machine isn't likely
> >to do what it's claimed to do. But silly me,
> >I'm just going by the scientific reasoning...I've never
> >actually *built* or *tested* one. I just kind of, you know,
> >have a grasp on reality.

> Have you thought about having your metallic exoskeleton refurbished? It might
> cost a few bucks, but it?ll stop the drunks from peeing on you.

Lacking any real arguments, you do seem to rely on your endless supply of bile
for 'rebuttals'. And I suppose that had to come from somewhere...


> >> 4. You have little or no understanding of the motivations of Normals in
> >> choosing audio gear, but you fail to acknowledge your ignorance. Is that
> >> because you're just plain dumb or because you're a pigheaded ideologue?
> >
> >> Well, I guess that should get you started. Have fun spinning, Sillyborg.
> >
> >
> >Consumers generally want something that sounds good to them, has the features
> >they want, looks good, and is affordable yet better than average.

> But you bought your box without knowing how it would sound. Do you see the
> fallacy, or are you having a binary seizure?

I made reasonable predictions that it would sound just fine, that its features
would be as advertised, and that it would look the way it did in the
photos. Wow, lucky me, I was right!

> >'Normals' don't want to be told that something costing far
> >less -- or which costs nothing -- stands a good chance of sounding
> >just the same than what they bought. But some of them might
> >appreciate being told that *before* their next purchase.

> You don?t even know how human beings actually evaluate audio gear. Sad.

Human being, myself included, are fallible. Some of them are smart and
realize this. Others pretend it's not true or that it doesn't matter.
Sad.


--

-S

[George M. Middius]

Sillybot, did you get an Emotion Chip? How daring. ;-)

> > > his reality is not necessarily the same one that you are in.

> > Yep, that's the nub. Perceptions are everything.

> Indeed? FWIW, I perceive you to be a malignant coward with only
> the most tenuous grasp of logic.

Actually, you feel that. You can look up "emotion" in any dictionary, in
case your programming didn't cover it.

> > Sillybot is in the throes of a complete mechanical breakdown.

> The two of you seem to have agreed on a shared reality, at least.
> Enjoy yourselves.

What do you think of this, Silly: "Existence exists." Is that a good
summary by a clever person or a fatuous copout by a lazy jackass?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > > "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> > >
> > > I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> > > orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
> > >
> > > > In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> > > > devices
> > > > or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> > > > between them.
> > > > But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> > >
> > > Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> > > Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
> > >
> > > > You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> > > > because
> > > > the listener *heard* them as different.
> > >
> > > The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
> > >
> > > > Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
> > >
> > > Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might be
> > > severely attenuated.
>
> > I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who had it coming
> > for bragging about his high-priced amps.
>
> > BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch experience."
>
> Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
> Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
> outcome ;>

No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the Pioneer/Krell party trick.

And the Zip tests proved... zip.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
>> In rec.audio.opinion MINe 109 >
>> wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>>>> orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>>>>
>>>>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>>>>> devices
>>>>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>>>>> between them.
>>>>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or
>>>>> setting.
>>>>
>>>> Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>>>> Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer
>>>> receiver.
>>>>
>>>>> You would claim that no, really, they *were*
>>>>> different, because
>>>>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>>>>
>>>> The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>>>>
>>>>> Is that rational, or is that...well, *crazy*?
>>>>
>>>> Good thing the host was a good guy, or Nousaine might
>>>> be severely attenuated.
>>
>>> I thought the story was the guy was a complete jerk who
>>> had it coming for bragging about his high-priced amps.
>>
>>> BTW, this doesn't qualify as a "phantom switch
>>> experience."
>>
>> Nope, you're thinking of the Nousaine/Maki tests of Steve
>> Zipser. Different situation, different amps...same
>> outcome ;>
>
> No, I'm recalling how Arny once described the
> Pioneer/Krell party trick.
>
> And the Zip tests proved... zip.

Actually they proved quite a bit about Zippy's lack of
honesty and general lack of character.

[Gareth Magennis]

This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
gripes about Science versus The Rest.

I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
still saying that this may not actually be true.

Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
undserstanding it?

Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
instances, merely observing a situation changes it. You could extrapolate
this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
to do. Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
"What the bleep do we know").

And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
> > wrote:
>
>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>
> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
> which cable was connected.
>
> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
> *really* trust their ears.
>
> Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
> back your opinion. That's how science works.................
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.


Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>>
>> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
>> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
>> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
>> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
>> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
>> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
>> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
>> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
>> which cable was connected.
>>
>> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
>> *really* trust their ears.
>>


You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible?


Gareth.






>> Now, if you disagree with that position, then show some *evidence* to
>> back your opinion. That's how science works.................
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
>
>
> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>
>
> Gareth.
>

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.

But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
There is a difference, you know.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>
> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
> There is a difference, you know.
>
> d



OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you
realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time
actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this
happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.

Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered
by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results.
Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long
period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips.
But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and
you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.


There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all,
other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count.




Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

> And there's more, like the observations that one particle
> can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large
> distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of
> fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a
> particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that
simple explanations are more likely to be correct.

When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and
hypothesize new scientific discoveries to explain things
that you perceive, which are easy to show are just audible
illusions, this should be a wake up call.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message


> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on
> the motorway and you realise that you have no
> recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was happening
> then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of
> that time actually got stored in your memory? Were you
> concious at all? Lots of possibilities. So you decide
> to conduct an experiment. The next time this happens you
> will check out your conciousness and see what is
> happening. Only you can't because the very act of
> attempting to carry out this test alters your
> conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.

What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having
routine blackouts while driving, pardon me if I want to be
driving some place else.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>
>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
>> There is a difference, you know.
>>
>> d
>
>
>
> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and you
> realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
> happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that time
> actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
> possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time this
> happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
> Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
> alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.
>
> Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be altered
> by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for results.
> Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a long
> period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
> something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
> wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
> really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the Philips.
> But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes and
> you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.
>
>
> There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at all,
> other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't count.
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.

OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference? It
is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his back
while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
knowledge of which cable he is listening to.

That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.

d

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis said:

> You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
> real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
> it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
> process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
> unobserved.

You're absolutely right, except that we do know what happens and why the
"tests" are not valid for consumers. The difference is psychological.
Different mindsets for human-style listening vs. lab-rat "tests".

There's another point about the two mindsets that's not so obvious: The
nerds can't separate the consumer viewpoint from the technician viewpoint.
They believe the DBT protocol is inherently better for everybody. In
reality it's only better for those who need it -- i.e. technicians. A
low-level characteristic of a system's performance may not register in
short-term listening sessions, but it can (and does) become apparent over
the long term. Humans are not robots; our brains filter information for
us. When we listen, we do so for pleasure, and that's what our brains
report. When we become accustomed to the sound of a system, we then start
to refine our impressions. We learn as we go. Robots don't do that, of
course -- they're fully programmed when they're "born".

The 'borgs refuse to acknowledge that using a tool the way you want to use
it is its best and highest purpose.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
> wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>> Magennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the
>>>> "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and
>>>> there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than
>>>> Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>> is merely absent.

This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
doesn't happen?

>>> There is a difference, you know.

How do you know that there is a difference in the total
absence of reliable evidence?

[Gareth Magennis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> message
>
>> And there's more, like the observations that one particle
>> can somehow affect the behaviour of another a large
>> distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond the realms of
>> fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a
>> particle in a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.
>
> Gareth, ever hear of Occam's razor? It basically says that simple
> explanations are more likely to be correct.
>
> When you have to call on astronomy, quantum physics and hypothesize new
> scientific discoveries to explain things that you perceive, which are easy
> to show are just audible illusions, this should be a wake up call.
>


I have heard of Mr Occam and his shaving device, and I am inclined to agree
with you. However, I lean more towards the idea that it is quite possible
we have been barking up the wrong tree all this time and the simple
explanation is that everything we think we know is wrong, because one, some
or all of the fundamental principles we hold so dear are wrong. The kind of
things I have mentioned in previous posts like Matter arising from Mind and
not the other way round, time not being at all what we think it is, reality
being illusory, Britney Spears being a better singer than Christina
Aguilera, Collective Conciousness meaning we are all part of some greater
being like leaves are part of a tree, hell, maybe even a God exists. And of
course other ideas and concepts that we just could not understand right now.

See, the Quantum Mechanics thing seems to be finding little things like mind
actually does affect matter and that things don't have to be near other
things to affect them or even to be part of them. Maybe we have
overcomplicated things enormously - maybe a paradigm leap in awareness would
bring everything down to the really simple level that it actually is. Can't
wait.


Gareth.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>>> Magennis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the
>>>>> "evidence" it insists is required is unreportable (and
>>>>> there is such a thing as unreportable evidence) than
>>>>> Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>>
>>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>>> is merely absent.
>
> This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
> evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that it
> doesn't happen?
>
You already know the answer to that. If the event is improbable, then the
only way to settle the matter is to demonstrate that it happens, waiting
for it not to happen for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.

>>>> There is a difference, you know.
>
> How do you know that there is a difference in the total
> absence of reliable evidence?

Evidence of absence vs. absence of evidence?

I will stick with the good Friar William to make my choice there.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

> What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts
> while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else.
>

You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road.



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>>
>>>> And that is exactly Sciences problem. If the "evidence" it insists is
>>>> required is unreportable (and there is such a thing as unreportable
>>>> evidence) than Science assumes it doesn't exist.
>>>
>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it is merely absent.
>>> There is a difference, you know.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, try this one. You know when you've been driving on the motorway and
>> you
>> realise that you have no recollection of the last 5 minutes? What was
>> happening then, were you in a trance, or is it just that none of that
>> time
>> actually got stored in your memory? Were you concious at all? Lots of
>> possibilities. So you decide to conduct an experiment. The next time
>> this
>> happens you will check out your conciousness and see what is happening.
>> Only you can't because the very act of attempting to carry out this test
>> alters your conciousness and the test in invalid and impossible.
>>
>> Listening to music at home during a long term test may at first be
>> altered
>> by you being concious that it is a test and you are listening for
>> results.
>> Eventually you will tire of this and forget about the test, and over a
>> long
>> period, say several days with the same CD player, you may be able to say
>> something like "I don't know why, but with the Philips CD player, I just
>> wanted to dance all the time, whereas 3 days with the Naim puts me in a
>> really peaceful mood and classical music sounds better than on the
>> Philips.
>> But as soon as you start to analyse the sound system, something changes
>> and
>> you are back to your test scenario, invalidating the test.
>>
>>
>> There is no reportable evidence here, or even any tangible evidence at
>> all,
>> other than the Subjective experiential evidence the scientists don't
>> count.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>
> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
> different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
> It
> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
> back
> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
> longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
> difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
> knowledge of which cable he is listening to.
>
> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.
>
> d


Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
do.


Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:15:45 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:27:54 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>>> Magennis wrote:

>>>>> But the evidence in this case is not unreportable - it
>>>>> is merely absent.

>> This begs the question - how far do we have to look for
>> evidence of an improbable event before we conclude that
>> it doesn't happen?

> You already know the answer to that. If the event is
> improbable, then the only way to settle the matter is to
> demonstrate that it happens, waiting for it not to happen
> for an arbitrary length of time settles nothing.
> Everybody just goes home bored and still arguing.

....and that puts us exactly where we are today.

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...


>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
>> instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
>> "can't you hear the difference? It
>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
>> him to turn his back
>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
>> hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
>> no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
>> circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
>> which cable he is listening to.
>
>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
>> *audible* effects.

> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
> tests are valid at all.

I see no indication of short or long listening tests in
Don's example.

However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on
Don's example, and then you objecting to it.

I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the
objection is a straw man argument.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for instance) sound
>> different. He swaps them around and says "can't you hear the difference?
>> It
>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell him to turn his
>> back
>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is hearing. He can no
>> longer hear the difference. There is no trance, no memory loss, no
>> difference to the previous circumstance - just an absence of advance
>> knowledge of which cable he is listening to.
>>
>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for *audible* effects.
>>
>> d
>
>
> Actually I don't think that these types of short term tests are valid at
> all. There is an enormous propensity for bias, even Audiophiles must admit
> that, surely. But I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
> talking about long term testing in their own homes. I don't think there is
> much in common between the two situations so you can't use one to prove or
> disprove the other, which I believe the scientific community is trying to
> do.
>
>
> Gareth.

No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem identifying his
differences in brief "can you hear it?" type tests when he knows which is
connected. He is also free to take just as long as he pleases when
unsighted.

I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> message
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>
>>> OK try this one: Somebody says that two cables (for
>>> instance) sound different. He swaps them around and says
>>> "can't you hear the difference? It
>>> is really obvious". You say "no, I can't". So you tell
>>> him to turn his back
>>> while you choose the cable, and ask him which he is
>>> hearing. He can no longer hear the difference. There is
>>> no trance, no memory loss, no difference to the previous
>>> circumstance - just an absence of advance knowledge of
>>> which cable he is listening to.
>>
>>> That is reportable, and a clear absence of evidence for
>>> *audible* effects.
>
>> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
>> tests are valid at all.
>
> I see no indication of short or long listening tests in Don's example.
>
> However Gareth, I see you imposing a short term test on Don's example, and
> then you objecting to it.
>
> I believe that the imposition is in essence lying, and the objection is a
> straw man argument.
>
>

OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
so it is not clear what is really being tested here. The result may not be
just an indication of "audible effects" or the lack thereof. It could be
showing the subject is suddenly unable to hear them during the test, for
whatever reason. If I held a gun to your head and told you I would shoot
you unless you clearly identified whether this was Coke or Pepsi, do you not
think that would alter what is actually being tested, and your perception of
what the drink tastes like, and your memories of what Pepsi and Coke taste
like without these conditions? Then it would be a taste test under duress,
not a normal taste test and the results may well be very different from
those taken at home over seveal days.

A long term test in real world conditions, I believe, tends to lose these
erroneous conditions and tests whether there has been any permanent
improvement or change in perceived sound, or whether it makes you dance to
all your CD's or not.


Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

>

> OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't
> really mean short term test. What I mean is that it is
> possible for a test like the above to alter the
> circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained
> previously, so it is not clear what is really being
> tested here.

OK Gareth at this point you are backed way deep into a
corner. You're persisting that your favorite cables
absolutely positively do make a difference that can be
easily heard by anybody with good ears and a good system,
then you're clutching at straws when it comes to reasons why
that doesn't happen when listener bias is controlled by any
known means.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis
> wrote:
>> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
>> tests are valid at all. There is an enormous propensity
>> for bias, even Audiophiles must admit that, surely. But
>> I think, and hope, that most Audiophiles are really
>> talking about long term testing in their own homes. I
>> don't think there is much in common between the two
>> situations so you can't use one to prove or disprove the
>> other, which I believe the scientific community is
>> trying to do.
>>
>>
>> Gareth.

> No, this won't wash. The "difference" man has no problem
> identifying his differences in brief "can you hear it?"
> type tests when he knows which is connected. He is also
> free to take just as long as he pleases when unsighted.

> I have to say, though, that I find that systems with
> genuine differences tend to sound the same with
> protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the new sound
> and puts it back together the way Inthink it should
> sound.

> You can get used to the most appalling crap if you
> listen long enough.

I got a practical lesson in this at HE2005, in virtually
every room with SET amplifiers, and many others as well.

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
great but the speakers!!!! ;-(

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:

>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
> great but the speakers!!!! ;-(

Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or
did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the
speakers?

d

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
> wrote:
>
>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>
> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>

I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
mind?

d

[Harry Lavo]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Stewart Pinkerton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:55:53 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
>>>>scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
>>>>possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts.
>>>
>>> You are missing the most basic point of all. The 'objectiviasts' are
>>> mostly of the opinion that what the 'subjectivists' *claim* to hear
>>> simply does not exist in the physical world, and henec there is
>>> nothing *to* explain. This opinion is renforced by the very basic fact
>>> that, despite lots of vigorous assertion by 'subjectivists', and
>>> despite the existence of a quite generous prize for demonstrating an
>>> ability to do so, not one single subjectivists has *ever* demonstrated
>>> an abilkity to hear differences among cables when he'she didn't *know*
>>> which cable was connected.
>>>
>>> Very simple, no fancy theories necessary, they simply refuse to
>>> *really* trust their ears.
>>>
>
>
> You are missing the most basic point of all. You believe a test and the
> real world environment will have exactly the same outcome. I believe that
> it is not beyond the realms of possibility that something in the testing
> process alters something in the test, by a process as yet unknown and
> unobserved. On what grounds do you think this is not possible?
>
>

It's not even totally unknown. Some work done by a group in Japan led by
Oohashi (
http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oohashi&searchid=1127314515517_819&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance )
found that short snippets of music did not allow enough time for an
emotional response by the brain to build (on average, this took 1.5-2
mins.). The difference in some of their tests was the difference between
"null" and "significantly different" on musical ratings.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>>
>> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
>> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
>> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
>> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>>
>
>I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
>seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.

Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
it's an actual music clip.

>> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
>> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
>> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>
>I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
>mind?

You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?

OK. Here it is revised:

Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.

If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:01:11 -0500, dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:38:31 +0100, Don Pearce >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>>>>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>>>>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>>>>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.
>>>
>>> I totally agree with acclimatizing effects. But it also shows that
>>> audio isn't as cut and dried as some think. And it can work the way
>>> that Mr. Middius outlined in a recent post. Sometimes it takes more
>>> than looping 2 clips of castinets to find differences.
>>>
>>
>>I would agree that very short clips are unrevealing. I need a good few
>>seconds at least to get "into" the sound I'm hearing.
>
> Yes, and looping a 2 sec clip is especially unhelpful, especially when
> it's an actual music clip.
>

Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own that
is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.

>>> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
>>> talking about what happens "in reality" like the idiotic inbred Lord
>>> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>>
>>I'd rather you didn't do this stuff in replies to me - I hate it. Would you
>>mind?
>
> You mean the "idiotic inbred Lord Pinkerton" quip?
>
> OK. Here it is revised:
>
> Since the whole auditory experience is an artificial construct,
> talking about what happens "in reality" like Mr.
> Pinkerton does, is a total waste of time.
>
> If only you'd take HIM to task for HIS rude comments. But it's your
> right to pull a nod and a wink to him.

If he replies to me in this fashion, rest assured I will.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
>> sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(
>
> Speakers and pianos in the same room?

Yes, but the speaker demo room and the piano room were
separated by a partial partition.

> What genius thought that one up?

really!

>Or did they have blankets to throw over the strings while
>they used the speakers?

none in sight, and I visited the room several times, for a
hors-d'oerves check.

[George M. Middius]

Gareth Magennis tries to have a human-style conversation with the
Krooborg.

> >> Actually I don't think that these types of short term
> >> tests are valid at all.

> > lying
> > straw man

> OK, I'm getting tired of all this typing. I didn't really mean short term
> test. What I mean is that it is possible for a test like the above to
> alter the circumstances of the test itself, as I have explained previously,
> so it is not clear what is really being tested here.

You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a waste of time.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message



> You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
> waste of time.

In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius
wastes his time with those crazy people, by the bucketload.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:25:52 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

>>
>>> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
>>
>>I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
>>orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
>>
>>> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
>>> devices
>>> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
>>> between them.
>>> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
>>
>>Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
>>Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
>>
>>> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
>>> because
>>> the listener *heard* them as different.
>>
>>The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>
>It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
>the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
>claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
>similarly fooled.

So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
of them?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[George Middius]

The Krooborg trashes his christian "morality" whenever it's convenient. Like
now, for example.

>> You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
>> waste of time.

>In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
>Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy.

Well, not exactly, Arnii. There's just you, the King of Mt. Crazy. Among that
impoverished group of apologists you kling to like a barnakle, there's a couple
of maladjusted cranks and a passel of class warriors. But no other crazies.

You could see a shrink, you know. Maybe they have meds that would help you.
Unless you're afraid the psychiatrists are part of the anti-Krooger plot, of
course. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

Stewart Pinkerton > said:

>So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
>cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
>of them?


They glow so nice ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[dave weil]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:48:36 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
> wrote:

>>It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
>>the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
>>claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
>>similarly fooled.
>
>So, you're saying that SETs are *not* sonically distinguishable from
>cheap SS amps when used below clipping? If so, then what's the point
>of them?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nice of you to show how your
reasoning is so skewed.

What I'm saying is that I could fool YOU in just the same way. I could
tell you that you were listening to your own Krell and substitute an
SET that you claimed was inferior and I bet you a dollar to a doughnut
that you'd buy it hook, line and sinker.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:


> This debate could go on forever, but has kind of digressed from my main
> gripes about Science versus The Rest.

> I still maintain that Science is trying to prove things by not taking into
> account the unknown. The Subjectivist has a feeling something else is going
> on, and has experiential evidence to prove it. The Scientist, seeing no
> evidence of this, is saying that the Subjectivist is mistaken. Science
> bases it's conclusions by assuming that current knowledge is correct, I am
> still saying that this may not actually be true.

Actaully, science 'says' that too. However, it requires that that you
demonstrate *why* it may not actually be true. For any claim of
'truth' for science, there's a line -- more likely a network -- of
repeatable evidence to back up *this* explanation and not *that* one.
Networks of evidence are not equally strong for *all*
explanations, except in the very early stages of an investigation.

Where is the network of evidence for your claims> And how does
it compare in strength to the network of evidence for, say,
the inherent fallibility of human perception?


> Go back to the early Astronomers - they were not stupid people, but of
> similar intellect of the scientists of today. (This is thought to be so
> because there were many Great Thinkers in History who were obviously very
> smart, and there is thought and puzzlement why there are not more of these
> Great Thinkers today). Anyway, they deduced eventually that the moving
> stars were in fact planets. An amazing discovery back then. Only some
> planets had weird paths - at some points they would even appear to go
> backwards. If we were discussing this phenomena back then instead of this
> one now, we would be arguing about what kind of forces are making this
> planet go backwards. (After all, nothing can move unless a force makes it
> move, can it?) Are there big invisible planets causing this, is there some
> unknown force or God doing this? Is it the human mind causing this? Is it
> an optical illusion? Yadda yadda yadda. Suddenly someone works out that we
> had all been assuming all along that the orbits were circular, and that an
> elliptical orbit explains everything. No force is making it move at all.

Well, that's not true -- of course there's a force 'making' them move.

But by all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence and testable hypotheses for your claims.

> So in this current argument, what vital information are we missing? Science
> assumes so much as initial conditions - that mind cannot affect matter, each
> individual is in exactly the same reality as everyone else, collective
> conciousness cannot change reality, a thing canot occupy more than one space
> at one time etc etc. How much do you think we really know on this subject?
> Do you not think that in 100 years time we are going to see ourselves as the
> Early Astronomers in this field making the first tentaive steps to
> undserstanding it?

By all means, emulate the scientists and provide us with reality-based
evidence for your 'what-ifs', and testable hypotheses.

> Look at Quantum mechanics - extremely weird things going on. In some
> instances, merely observing a situation changes it.

This occurs at sub-atomic levels. At 'macro' levels it's swamped by
'noise'.


> You could extrapolate
> this to the possibility that testing something in a Lab is not the same as a
> long listening test in a home environment, which is what Audiophiles prefer
> to do.

*You* could make that extrapolation from quantum physics, but it's
certainly not something that an actual physicist would do.
Because they understand what they're talking about.

> Testing, looking for results, may in some way alter the experiment.
> We simply do not know and do not test for it. And look at time, for
> instance. There is no such thing as absolute time. Take 2 clocks, one up
> on a tower and the other at the bottom of it, and they will run at different
> times, as time is a function of gravity. This is well known. Which means
> that time is subjective. Each person has his own personal time. Time is
> measured by individual clocks on individual subjects. Extrapolate this a
> bit and you get the possibility that the Subjectivist take on individual
> realities is a very valid idea. And recently a scientist has apparently
> been showing evidence of the same particle being in 2 different places at
> the same time. Get your head around that one. (I can't qualify this
> though, I heard it from my brother - it is apparently documented in the film
> "What the bleep do we know").

A film funded by, and serving a propaganda for, some rather kooky religious
characters.

If you take this, and books liek 'The Tao of Physics' as indicators of
what the evidence actually says, then it's no wonder your ideas are so
wooly.

> And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow affect
> the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not beyond
> the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle in
> a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



--

-S

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message


> In rec.audio.opinion Arny Krueger >
> wrote:

>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
>>
>
>
>>> You're arguing with a crazy person, you know. It's a
>>> waste of time.

>> In Middius' world, everybody but his disciples, the
>> Stereophile's staff, and himself are crazy. But, Middius
>> wastes his time with those crazy people, by the
>> bucketload.

> I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance
> itself as far as possible from Mr. Middius.

Agreed - its a unilateral arrangement.

BTW, I think we've just seen another example of that.

AFAIK there has been exactly one post from Middius on the
new Stereophile conferences.

[Clyde Slick]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>> What freeways do you drive on Gareth? If you're having routine blackouts
>> while driving, pardon me if I want to be driving some place else.
>>
>
> You'll be OK, I only drive on Motorways on the left hand side of the road.
>

"At least" as far as you can remember.

[George Middius]

Sillybot is still feeling the sting.

>I suspect the Stereophile staff would want to distance itself
>as far as possible from Mr. Middius.

LOL! How much do you want to bet on that, Silly? I can wait until you grow up
and get a real job. ;-)

[[email protected]]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:34:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> Ever hear of a phantom switch experience?
> >
> >I'm sure that you've heard about the one that Nousaine
> >orchestrated at a SMWTMS meeting.
> >
> >> In it, the listener is led to believe there are two
> >> devices
> >> or settings, A and B. He describes sonic difference
> >> between them.
> >> But in fact, A and B are the very same device or setting.
> >
> >Nousaine contrived to get the host's I think it was
> >Krell-based system replaced with a small Pioneer receiver.
> >
> >> You would claim that no, really, they *were* different,
> >> because
> >> the listener *heard* them as different.
> >
> >The proudly host showed-off his *Krell* system.
>
> It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
> the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
> claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
> similarly fooled.

On Sept. 20, 11.25am. dave weil said
It's this very same "effect" that makes me recommend that someone do
the same thing to YOU guys. I have little doubt that those of you who
claim the inferiority of SETs and tube amps in general would be
similarly fooled

You hit the nail on the head. In fact the experiment you
suggest was already performed. ( see my reply to Mr. Magennis today).
In a blind comparison of four loudspeakers two of which
had large dips and peaks in the frequency curve large majority of the
nearly 300 panelists failed to distinguish the good from the bad. But
the same majority preferred the smooth frequency speakers to the
inferior ones when not bothered with trying to distinguish them.
So much for these homegrown, selfnominated
"scientists'" two articles of belief.:
1) "You must be able to distinguish before you can prefer"
2) " Our beloved test shows that you can not tell the amps. preamps,
cables, cd players, and dacs from each other because the differences
either don't exist or are very "subtle". ("subtle" means:
whatever he can't hear).
Ah, they say but the loudspeakers are different- any
fool can tell the difference. Well, Sean Olive found well over 200
fools who could not.
What I find refreshing is that in your posting you
bring the argument down to earth, where it belongs.
The ABX cultists just love theoretical
speculations- the more abstruse the better.
It does not matter that they betray (like Sullivan
talking about "real" and *unreal* perceptions) their ignorance of
the last three millennia of perennial philosophical argument about the
relation of human perceptions to the "reality" of the material
world. It is all simple to them because they read one or two undergrad
textbooks
What they do not like is being challenged to show
one single -publishable reference to experimental validation of their
beloved "test"- a test in which the verdict was: "Yes the panel
distinguished the components from each other". They can not because
when ABXing it all sounds the same.
As they have no answer they either grow silent in
a huff, or talk about "kill-files" like Mr. Sullivan, or , reach
for their inner obscene hooligan as you'll know who.
Ludovic Mirabel


________

[[email protected]]

Denis Sbragion wrote:
> Hello Gareth,
>
> "Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
> :
>
> > My point is that if you think that things can be explained by current
> > scientific knowledge, it implies that these current theories cannot
> > possibly be incorrect or missing vital parts. You are basing your
> > explanation on a severely limited knowledge base, which I believe is
> > fundamentally flawed logic. There could be all sorts of reasons, as
> ...
>
> you talk like we're discussing about some bleeding edge research about
> subatomic particles, or some completely new theory of astrophysics. Instead
> we're discussing just about the reproduction of sound, hardly something so
> new or so complicated. Isn't this even more flawed?
> It's quite hard for me to believe that we have been able to send the
> man to the moon, some robots to mars, a probe out of the solar system,
> we've been able to receive signals from stars billions of light years away,
> accelerate particles close to the speed of light, and many other amazing
> things, and we aren't able to understand how sound and its reproduction
> actually works.
>
> Bye,
>
> --
> . I agree with you. The web exchange of off- the- top- of- the= head speculations has little to do with audio.
But my reasons for saying it are diametrically different. It
is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we
know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to
zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less
because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the
brain. Do you?
Quite, quite, sound means waves that enter the ear. From
then on the labyrinth and the cochlea and the acoustic nerve and the
acoustic brain centres in the temporal lobe cortex and the countless
synapses to the frontal cortex and other connexions we have yet to
learn about get to work on it..
And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the
complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How
does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes?
There is more complexity under the heavens than your
textbooks had an inkling of.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos sounded
> > great but the speakers!!!! ;-(
>
> Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius thought that one up? Or
> did they have blankets to throw over the strings while they used the
> speakers?
>
> d

The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers are working
correctly. The cabinet on the other hand......

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Ludovic,

wrote in
oups.com:

> is not because audio is a simple physical phenomenon about which we
> know all that there is to be known. On the contrary we know next to
> zero. At least I do and I suspect that you know fractionally less
> because I have superficial acquaintance with neurophysiology of the
> brain. Do you?
....

just a little, but this is interesting only after the sound has entered
our ear and has been converted to a neurological signal. I'm much more
concerned about the accuracy of the sound, with respect to what's on the
record, just before it enters our ear.
It's true that knowing what happens after the ear entrance is
helpful when you have to make decision between different tradeoffs,
because clearly you can decide which tradeoff is better for our
perception. BTW I'm quite convinced that the technology is now mature
enough to try to avoid any tradeoff at all, or at least to get really
close to this ideal situation.
Once this has been achieved you no longer have to worry about what
happens afterward, because it happens exactly what happens when you are
exposed to the sound that is "coded" on the record. Once this has been
achieved it's the artist task to create records that satisfy our ear.

> And neither you nor I have the foggiest what the brain makes of the
> complex , interweaving sound waves originated by a piece of music. How
> does a flutist tell the difference between two flutes?
> There is more complexity under the heavens than your
> textbooks had an inkling of.

I'm not interested into understanding how our brain tell the difference
between this sort of things. I just want the sound on the record
reproduced with as much accuracy as possible just before it enters our
sense. After that it's the ear and brain job, and I'm pretty confident
that it will do it pretty well.

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Gareth Magennis]

>> And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow
>> affect
>> the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not
>> beyond
>> the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle
>> in
>> a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.
>
> Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.
>


This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
Try and think just a little outside the box, please.


Gareth.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
> mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
> believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
> the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.
>

Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist.

> For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
> Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
> side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
> your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
> electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
> these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
> or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
> Try and think just a little outside the box, please.

Columbus wasn't a scientist - he was a Christian.

d

[Gareth Magennis]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
>> mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
>> believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
>> the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.
>>
>
> Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
> scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
> religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
> beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the
> scientist.
>


Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists with the same
brush. What I should be saying is "People with the attitude of Mr
Sullivan....... "



Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

> Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a character of its own
> that
> is wholly unrelated to the normal audio content.
>

Yes, if you keep triggering a short vocal sample for instance, it very
quickly takes on a very non-human timbre. (Dance Music uses this for
effect). We never hear identical repeats in the real world.


Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message


>>> And there's more, like the observations that one
>>> particle can somehow affect
>>> the behaviour of another a large distance away. So
>>> perhaps it is not beyond
>>> the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can
>>> affect a particle in
>>> a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.

>> Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.

> This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference
> between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded
> one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that
> things we do not yet understand may be possible.

Wrong. Gareth, you seem to think that particle physics is
full of unknowns and speculation, and that there have been
no real-world experiments at all.

> Read again the above paragraph. You are calling
> unquestionable logic fantasy.

Gareth your idea of "unquestionable logic" makes religious
belief look like factual certainty.

> For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation
> with Christopher Columbus and tried to explain to him how
> you talked to someone on the other side of the world on
> your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
> your face.

You really just don't know about that, do you Gareth? I
suspect that with a proper foundation of experiences,
Columbus would accept the facts and get on with his life. He
seems to have been a fairly flexible fellow.

> To get him to understand you would have to
> start with explaining electricity and then radio.

Not at all. A few simple demos would suffice. Maybe we'd
start out with making a cellphone call while we were
face-to-face and just have the demonstrators walk further
and further apart. At some point it wouldn't be a leap of
faith for Columbus to believe that it was now easy to speak
over long distances.


> Chances are the only way he could visualise these sorts
> of technology would be to think of them as some kind of
> "magic" or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the
> same attitude as yourself. Try and think just a little
> outside the box, please.

I think you ought to take your own advice, Gareth. Your idea
of Science seems to be trapped in a tiny little box.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth
>> Magennis wrote:
>>> This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference
>>> between the Scientist mindset and the more open minded
>>> one. The Scientist mindset refuses to believe that
>>> things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read
>>> again the above paragraph. You are calling
>>> unquestionable logic fantasy.
>>
>> Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than
>> this? It is the scientist who not only imagines, but
>> creates the new possible. It is the religious mindset
>> that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
>> beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and
>> screaming by the scientist.
>
>
> Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists
> with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People
> with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... "

Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is that
he probably has a more relevant set of educational and
life's experiences than you do, Gareth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
>>> sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(
>>
>> Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius
>> thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw
>> over the strings while they used the speakers?
>>
>> d
>
> The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers
> are working correctly.

Agreed.

> The cabinet on the other hand......

....and the sounding-board.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a
> character of its own that is wholly unrelated to the
> normal audio content.

Ah, the lost voices of the blind leading the blind.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:14:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
>> Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a
>> character of its own that is wholly unrelated to the
>> normal audio content.
>
>Ah, the lost voices of the blind leading the blind.

You obviously don't have any particular relationship to MUSIC, if you
don't understand how distracting a looping trumpet flourish is and how
it turns it into something other than what it is. Even the jingling
sound of keys gains a rhythm that isn't present in the original when a
2 second sample is looped.

[Gareth Magennis]

>> Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists
>> with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People
>> with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... "
>
> Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is that he probably
> has a more relevant set of educational and life's experiences than you do,
> Gareth.
>

Education does not necessarily teach you to be objective or open minded.
For that you need to be able to step outside of your head for a while and be
honest about things. But many people are in their subject far too deep and
have too many vested interests in it to be anything near objective about it.


Gareth.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce >
wrote:


>I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
>tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
>new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
>can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.

Personally I've always found that dissatisfaction only sets in after
protracted listening. At first you want to believe you've made a good
purchase. "Hey, it's not the greatest but...still OK for the price."
You try hard to like it for a couple of weeks but in the end...nope,
it just won't do. Get used to appalling crap? Nope, not me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in
message

>>> Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all
>>> Scientists with the same brush. What I should be
>>> saying is "People with the attitude of Mr
>>> Sullivan....... "
>>
>> Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is
>> that he probably has a more relevant set of educational
>> and life's experiences than you do, Gareth.
>>
>
> Education does not necessarily teach you to be objective
> or open minded.

There's a form of so-called open-mindedness that amounts to
having holes in your head.

> For that you need to be able to step
> outside of your head for a while and be honest about
> things.

Most people who spout off about things like this really have
nothing of their own to contribute but tired platitudes.

> But many people are in their subject far too
> deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
> anything near objective about it.

That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared
audiophool who has over-invested in equipment, and has to
invent new-age theories to justify his purchases.

The irony is that about 30 years ago when I was working to
invent ABX, DBTs amounted to "thinking outside the box". In
a bizarre way, they still do.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>And it can work the way
>that Mr. Middius

Mr. Middius? Oh you mean old George....

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > Don Pearce > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>> The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
> >>> sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(
> >>
> >> Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius
> >> thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw
> >> over the strings while they used the speakers?
> >>
> >> d
> >
> > The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers
> > are working correctly.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The cabinet on the other hand......
>
> ...and the sounding-board.

Yup.

[George Middius]

A konfession from the Krooborg?

>Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine.

There's your reality check, Gareth. Krooger approves of Sillybot's blather.

> His *problem* is that
>he probably has a more relevant set of educational and
>life's experiences than you do, Gareth.

Teenage "trainees", anyone? ;-)

[George Middius]

paul packer said:

>>And it can work the way
>>that Mr. Middius

>Mr. Middius? Oh you mean old George....

Pucker up when you say that, paulie.

[George Middius]

Mr. **** tries to flush but (surprise!) takes a bath instead.

>> But many people are in their subject far too
>> deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
>> anything near objective about it.

>The irony is that about 30 years ago when I first started collecting
>and classifying turds, DBTs amounted to "thinking inside the toilet". In
>an all-too-familiar way, they still do.

Thank you Mr. Krooborg for sticking to your area of expertiese(tm).

[Gareth Magennis]

>> But many people are in their subject far too
>> deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
>> anything near objective about it.
>
> That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared audiophool who has
> over-invested in equipment, and has to invent new-age theories to justify
> his purchases.
>



I'd agree that there are such people on both sides of this argument for
sure.



Gareth.

[George Middius]

Gareth Magennis said to Mr. ****:

>>> But many people are in their subject far too
>>> deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
>>> anything near objective about it.

>> That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared audiophool who has
>> over-invested in equipment, and has to invent new-age theories to justify
>> his purchases.

>I'd agree that there are such people on both sides of this argument for
>sure.

You're still arguing with a crazy person. Still futile.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis > wrote:
> >> And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow
> >> affect
> >> the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not
> >> beyond
> >> the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle
> >> in
> >> a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.
> >
> > Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.
> >


> This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
> mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
> believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible.

And that's the mindset about science, of someone who doesn't have a clue
what science is. Science is about determining which of the 'possibles'
are likely to be *true*. It does this by carefully collecting evidence
and applying reason to determine which explanation best fits the
evidence.

What evidence would you gather to indicate the likely *truth* of the claim
that thinking about a CD changes a 'particle' in a CD player?
It's not enough to simply assert it might happen. It's certainly not
enough to take a very naive understanding of 'quantum entanglement'
and claim it *might* cause audibly physical changes to a CD.
That's not evidence, it's speculation, with several crucial
steps of reasoning missing.

Current explanations for audible difference have a strong line
of evidence and reason backing them up. Your explanation doesn't.
Why should we consider it as being a 'competitor' for the current
explanations, then? WHy shoudl it be considered *anything more than*
fanciful speculation?

> For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
> Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
> side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
> your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
> electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
> these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
> or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
> Try and think just a little outside the box, please.

(thinking outside the box) â‰* (not thinking)

You are 'thinking outside the box' without thinking about what *is*
known.

Scienctific explanations are always open to revision. But acknowledging
that something *could be* wrong isn't the same as saying we should
*assume* it is.



--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.opinion Don Pearce > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:

> > This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
> > mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
> > believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
> > the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.
> >

> Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
> scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
> religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
> beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist.

It's why I suspect Mr. Magennis doesn't really understand what science is.


--

-S

[George Middius]

Sillybot engages his prayer module.

>It's why I suspect Mr. Magennis doesn't really understand what science is.

Your understanding of "science" is rather quaint. You believe reading about
other people's experiments gives you a full understanding of interpreting
sensory reactions. This is the posturing of an unprogrammed robot, not a living,
breathing person.