Golden-Ears Myth [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

January 9th 06, 03:43 AM

124 wrote:
> Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
> golden-ears myth.
>
> Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
> http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
> http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies
>
> The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
> http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
>
> The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
> http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
>
> More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>
> More evidence against the myth:
> http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm
>
> More evidence against the myth:
> http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#4
>
> --124

The Mr//Ms 124 (what tantalising secrets are concealed behind this
alias?) piles up reference on reference proving that to the
chapel-members cables, amplifiers etc. all sound the same and everyone
who hears otherwise is just trying to upset the good folk.. They want
PROOF that Dick hears what he says he does or else...
As Margaret von Busen said: "Yawn" . Indeed what else is
new? We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same..
The song one would like to hear for a change would be
something like this: "We acknowledge there are differences between
SOME audio components like for instance loudspeakers and audio
cartridges and we can prove that they are audible to any decent-sized
representative panel using our well tried, golden-ears debunking
techniques, of double blind, level-matched ABX testing.
Amazingly the combative Mr. Aczel (and Mr/Ms 124) have
nothing to say about that.. Perhaps they read Sean Olive's loudspeaker
testing results. Majority of single- blinded :large panel could not
differentiate between very different loudspeakers when asked to A-B
them.
But when not bothered with such testing but just asked:
"Which one do you like better?" the same majority plumped unfailingly
for the two frequency-flat speakers.
Try it with eg. amplifiers?
Ludovic Mirabel

124

January 9th 06, 01:39 PM

wrote:

> 124 wrote:
> >
> > Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
> > golden-ears myth.
> >
> > Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
> > http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
> > http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies
> >
> > The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
> > http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
> >
> > The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
> > http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
> >
> > More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
> > http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
> >
> > More evidence against the myth:
> > http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm
> >
> > More evidence against the myth:
> > http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#4
>
> We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.

Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
certainty that they will sound identical? It is because their ego
will not allow it. If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.

--124

surf

January 9th 06, 02:47 PM

dickie malesweski writes:
>
> ...If I spent that kind of money ($200,000) on a power
> amplifier...

or if you even HAD that kind of money....

> In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.

Maybe if you weren't so ashamed of who you are
and just posted from your home account.....

btw, why are you so ashamed of yourself? (as if we
didn't know)

In an unrelated matter, how was the '05 MS Ride?
How come you didn't receive the Shining Star Award
this year?

Pooh Bear

January 9th 06, 02:53 PM

124 wrote:

> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

dave weil

January 9th 06, 05:11 PM

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>
>124 wrote:
>
>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
>> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
>> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
>> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>
>The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>
>Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Pooh Bear

January 9th 06, 06:08 PM

dave weil wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >124 wrote:
> >
> >> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> >> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> >> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> >> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> >> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> >> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
> >
> >The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
> >
> >Graham
>
> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

I'm not qualified to comment on timepieces. I have a relatively inexpensive
Sekonda fwiw. It appears to keep time well enough.

I suppose some might buy a Rolex as jewellery though.

Graham

[email protected]

January 9th 06, 09:20 PM

124 wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > 124 wrote:
> > >
> > > Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
> > > golden-ears myth.
> > >
> > > Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
> > > http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
> > > http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies
> > >
> > > The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
> > > http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf
> > >
> > > The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
> > > http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html
> > >
> > > More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
> > > http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
> > >
> > > More evidence against the myth:
> > > http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm
> > >
> > > More evidence against the myth:
> > > http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#4
> >
> > We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.
>
> Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
> audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
> predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
> certainty that they will sound identical? It is because their ego
> will not allow it. If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>
> In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.
>
> --124
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, regretfully (though not to the point of hot tears) we do not
agree. This may be due to my inability to explain myself or to your
inability (?wilful unwillingness?) to comprehend .
Indeed everything does sound the same: to an average listening
panel *trying to ABX*.any audio components whatsoever.
But, as in S.Olive loudspeaker test it no longer does so if they
concentrate on "Which one do I like better?" instead of listening to A
then to B then trying to recollect them while listening to X to find
out if it sounds more like A or like B. This is not how we humans
listen to music. Granted, things are different in the cyber universe.
Nor is it what a pianist does when deciding if he likes a
Bluethner better than a Yamaha.

The point remains. Do you or anyone else know what
differences can be heard when ABXing, by what kind of audience, with
what limitations. Where are the reports of POSITIVE listening tests by
a representative panel? Listening to ANY audio component category
whatsoever. Such reports are called validation. Translation: without
them the "test" is junk journalism. For instance: it was an article of
faith in the ABX chapel that there was no point in comparinng
loudspeakers by ABX because differences were so glaring. Well, Olive's
panelists failed to hear the differences between four very different
speakers - just single blinded. Imagine the outcome with full ABX.! You
do it- my imagination staggers.
You're right- there are no golden ears. Nor is there a
"test" for them. There are only individuals who hear a little more or a
little less than the average. Just like in every other walk of life.
And judging by their products many recording engineers are not at the
upper end of this scale.
Ludovic Mirabel

George M. Middius

January 9th 06, 10:05 PM

124Borg said:

> > We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.

> Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
> audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
> predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
> certainty that they will sound identical?

You might as well give up on your quest, little 'borg. You'll never
figure it out, and repeating the same babyish whining endlessly on
Usenet won't make up for your shortcomings.

The truth is that you're hopeless. We're all sorry for you, but there's
no solace for you among strangers.

[email protected]

January 9th 06, 11:49 PM

Pooh Bear wrote:
> 124 wrote:
>
> > If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> > for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> > identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> > devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> > money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> > there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>
> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>
> Graham

And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another audiophool so very
different from our clever Pooh Bear who ABXes it against neighbourhood
music store violins, hears "no difference" and pats himself on the
back: "No golden ear will take this bear for a ride.
Ludovic Mirabel"

January 10th 06, 12:14 AM

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>124 wrote:
>>
>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
>>> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
>>> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
>>> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>>
>>The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>>
>>Graham
>
> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.

Arny Krueger

January 10th 06, 03:23 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>> 124 wrote:
>>
>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
>>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
>>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
>>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
>>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
>>> the evidence.
>>
>> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>>
>> Graham
>
> And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
> audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
> who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
> hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
> golden ear will take this bear for a ride.

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

Clyde Slick

January 10th 06, 04:01 AM

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>124 wrote:
>>>
>>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
>>>> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
>>>> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
>>>> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>>>
>>>The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>>>
>>>Graham
>>
>> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
>
> If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.
>

It has a better sounding alarm.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick

January 10th 06, 04:02 AM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and
> bad violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
> violins.

Its easy to hear the difference between good choral groups and bad.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[email protected]

January 10th 06, 05:28 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> >> 124 wrote:
> >>
> >>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> >>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
> >>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
> >>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
> >>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
> >>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> >>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
> >>> the evidence.
> >>
> >> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
> >>
> >> Graham
> >
> > And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
> > audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
> > who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
> > hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
> > golden ear will take this bear for a ride.
>
> Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
> violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
> violins.

Arny, Arny you must remember that you once said that loudspeakers were
not worth ABXing because anyone could hear the difference. Well, not
anyone. 200 out of 260 Olive's panelists could not as long as they were
bothered by blinding and answering to "Is A like B?'
But they ceased having a problem once they concentrated on what they
liked best.
Are violins just as "easy" to compare A vs B as loudspeakers? Why don't
you try ABXing them.and report. I trust you'll tell the truth and I'll
even let you off level matching.
Ludovic Mirabel
By the way- what doe GMAB stand for? I'm sure you would not be rude to
your old pal.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 10th 06, 05:43 AM

From: "Arny Krueger" >
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500

>Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
>violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
>violins.

It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.

Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).

I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
left.

Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.

There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
hold true there.

So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
performs better being stupid?

dave weil

January 10th 06, 05:55 AM

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:14:53 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>124 wrote:
>>>
>>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
>>>> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
>>>> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
>>>> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>>>
>>>The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>>>
>>>Graham
>>
>> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
>
>If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.

One could argue that it does.

[email protected]

January 10th 06, 06:44 AM

124 wrote:
> M

<yawn>

[email protected]

January 10th 06, 06:45 AM

124 wrote:
> M

<yawn>

[email protected]

January 10th 06, 06:47 AM

124 wrote:

> Goo

<yawn>

Arny Krueger

January 10th 06, 11:41 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>>> 124 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
>>>>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
>>>>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
>>>>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
>>>>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
>>>>> the evidence.
>>>>
>>>> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
>>> audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
>>> who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
>>> hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
>>> golden ear will take this bear for a ride.
>>
>> Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between
>> good violins and bad violins. It's easy to hear the
>> difference between two different good violins.
>
> Arny, Arny you must remember that you once said that
> loudspeakers were not worth ABXing because anyone could
> hear the difference. Well, not anyone. 200 out of 260
> Olive's panelists could not as long as they were bothered
> by blinding and answering to "Is A like B?'

I'm not buying it Ludo. Prove it with a cite from an online source.

Arny Krueger

January 10th 06, 11:41 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: "Arny Krueger" >
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500
>
>> Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between
>> good violins and bad violins. It's easy to hear the
>> difference between two different good violins.
>
> It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any
> better, sonically or otherwise, than any other
> well-constructed violin.

Never said better, just different.

124

January 10th 06, 01:09 PM

Pooh Bear wrote:

> 124 wrote:
>
> > If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> > for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> > identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> > devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> > money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> > there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
>
> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
that they have been taken for a ride. Only a few can admit that they
were foolish and bought into the myth. Magazines like _Stereophile_
and _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping audiophiles.
They do give a damn about helping unethical high-end companies sell
their products. These magazines and companies understand this
psychology and ruthlessly exploit it.

--124

Arny Krueger

January 10th 06, 01:28 PM

"124" > wrote in
message
ups.com
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
>> 124 wrote:
>>
>>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
>>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
>>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
>>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
>>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
>>> the evidence.
>>
>> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>
> Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
> audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
> ride.

RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.

> Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
> bought into the myth.

Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.

> Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
> _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
> audiophiles.

Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
manufacturers and dealers.

>They do give a damn about helping unethical
> high-end companies sell their products.

Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors are
sincere and how many are just running another business.

> These magazines
> and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
> exploit it.

One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
writing staffs.

Truth be known, some of their writing staff needs psychiatric treatment, but
are apparently too proud to ask.

George M. Middius

January 10th 06, 01:39 PM

124Borg said:

> Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
> that they have been taken for a ride.

It seethes with class envy. It doesn't use a name. Perhaps its actual
"name" is 1 of 24. Or maybe 4 of 12, which it cleverly rearranged to
throw us off the trail.

Was surf right? Are you wallowing in bicycle grease and fantasizing
about a "GF" and gourmet meals?

Arny Krueger

January 10th 06, 02:01 PM

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

> 124Borg said:
>
>> Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
>> audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
>> ride.

> It seethes with class envy.

Since when is being taken for a ride a sign of being upper class?

Pooh Bear

January 10th 06, 03:00 PM

124 wrote:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> > 124 wrote:
> >
> > > If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> > > for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> > > identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> > > devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> > > money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> > > there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
> >
> > The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>
> Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
> that they have been taken for a ride. Only a few can admit that they
> were foolish and bought into the myth. Magazines like _Stereophile_
> and _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping audiophiles.
> They do give a damn about helping unethical high-end companies sell
> their products. These magazines and companies understand this
> psychology and ruthlessly exploit it.

Advertising revenue has to be the reason.

As for the quality of reviews, I knew this guy who's local who reviews for a
hi-fi rag. He's fond of the odd 'spliff'. Given the effect that cannabis has
on your hearing perception ( anongst other things ) I wouldn't exactly
consider his reviews to be particularly reliable.

Graham

[email protected]

January 10th 06, 06:35 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: "Arny Krueger" >
> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500
>
> >Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
> >violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
> >violins.
>
> It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
> or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.
>
> Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
> desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).
>
> I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
> violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
> performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
> couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
> middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
> left.
>
> Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
> given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
> of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
> not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
> times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
> imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.
>
> There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
> tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
> hold true there.
>
> So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
> performs better being stupid?

Well argued and probably true account. A real model for a genuine
discussion of issues.
Will keep in mind. Thank you
Ludovic Mirabel

Arny Krueger

January 11th 06, 11:39 AM

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> From: "Arny Krueger" >
>> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500
>>
>> >Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and
>> >bad
>> >violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
>> >violins.
>>
>> It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
>> or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.
>>
>> Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
>> desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).
>>
>> I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
>> violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
>> performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
>> couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
>> middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
>> left.
>>
>> Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
>> given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
>> of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
>> not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
>> times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
>> imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.
>>
>> There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
>> tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
>> hold true there.
>>
>> So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
>> performs better being stupid?
>
> Well argued and probably true account. A real model for a genuine
> discussion of issues.

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

124

January 11th 06, 01:02 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "124" > wrote in
> message
> ups.com
> > Pooh Bear wrote:
> >
> >> 124 wrote:
> >>
> >>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> >>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
> >>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
> >>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
> >>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
> >>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> >>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
> >>> the evidence.
> >>
> >> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
> >
> > Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
> > audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
> > ride.
>
> RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.
>
> > Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
> > bought into the myth.
>
> Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.
>
> > Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
> > _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
> > audiophiles.
>
> Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
> manufacturers and dealers.
>
> >They do give a damn about helping unethical
> > high-end companies sell their products.
>
> Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors are
> sincere and how many are just running another business.
>
> > These magazines
> > and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
> > exploit it.
>
> One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
> writing staffs.

Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
types of magazines. Maybe he still does.

--124

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 11th 06, 01:21 PM

From: "Arny Krueger" >
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500

>Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Interesting response. Please explain.

Arny Krueger

January 11th 06, 02:01 PM

"124" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
> Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
> types of magazines. Maybe he still does.

AFAIK Brucie Babes went to sockpuppet heaven.

January 11th 06, 05:23 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> 124Borg said:
>
>> Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
>> that they have been taken for a ride.
>
> It seethes with class envy. It doesn't use a name. Perhaps its actual
> "name" is 1 of 24. Or maybe 4 of 12, which it cleverly rearranged to
> throw us off the trail.
>
You are such a complete idiot George. You can't seem to get it through your
head that there's no envy in people condemning the high price paid for
things that don't make any sonic difference.
There is simply the fact that if it works well and actually does improve the
sound of an audio system, no matter what the device may be, nobody really
cares if it's expensive. That's why you don't hear anybody bitching about
expensive speakers, since they actually do make differences and tend to get
better sounding as they get more expensive.

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Of course, this won't stop you from lying about it, again, and again, and
again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

January 11th 06, 05:24 PM

"124" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "124" > wrote in
>> message
>> ups.com
>> > Pooh Bear wrote:
>> >
>> >> 124 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
>> >>> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
>> >>> that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
>> >>> the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
>> >>> audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
>> >>> power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
>> >>> there is a very good chance that I would never accept
>> >>> the evidence.
>> >>
>> >> The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
>> >
>> > Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
>> > audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
>> > ride.
>>
>> RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.
>>
>> > Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
>> > bought into the myth.
>>
>> Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.
>>
>> > Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
>> > _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
>> > audiophiles.
>>
>> Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
>> manufacturers and dealers.
>>
>> >They do give a damn about helping unethical
>> > high-end companies sell their products.
>>
>> Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors
>> are
>> sincere and how many are just running another business.
>>
>> > These magazines
>> > and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
>> > exploit it.
>>
>> One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
>> writing staffs.
>
> Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
> Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
> types of magazines. Maybe he still does.
>
> --124
>
I think he posts exclusively now as Andre Jute. :-)

Clyde Slick

January 12th 06, 01:18 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: "Arny Krueger" >
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500
>
>>Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.
>
> Interesting response. Please explain.
>

Better yet, PROVE IT!!!

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

paul packer

January 12th 06, 05:39 AM

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, > wrote:

>Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so spending
>huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
>ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

124

January 12th 06, 01:19 PM

paul packer wrote:

> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

--124

MINe 109

January 12th 06, 01:39 PM

In article . com>,
"124" > wrote:

> paul packer wrote:
>
> > Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> > difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> > I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> > more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> > of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> > of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>
> Placebo effect?

Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
in health not attributable to treatment."

Two out of three.

Stephen

George M. Middius

January 12th 06, 01:46 PM

MINe 109 said to 4 of 12:

> > Placebo effect?

> Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
> in health not attributable to treatment."
>
> Two out of three.

Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.

Arny Krueger

January 12th 06, 01:50 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: "Arny Krueger" >
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500
>
>>Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.
>
> Interesting response. Please explain.

Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard references.

Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
actual situation.

Arny Krueger

January 12th 06, 01:51 PM

Arny Krueger

January 12th 06, 01:52 PM

"124" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> paul packer wrote:
>
>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>
> Placebo effect?

More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
evaluation technique".

MINe 109

January 12th 06, 04:22 PM

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MINe 109 said to 4 of 12:
>
> > > Placebo effect?
>
> > Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
> > in health not attributable to treatment."
> >
> > Two out of three.
>
> Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
> Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
> the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
> language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
> pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
> Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
> language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.

And I didn't even mention "begging the question."

Stephen

Arny Krueger

January 12th 06, 04:28 PM

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote:

>> Stephen, it's unfair to expect a 'borg to use words properly. They spend
>> Their entire childhoods learning that language is a means of distracting
>> the unassimilated. Communication is a forbidden art in the Hive, and
>> language is the black magic of the Organics. To Them, correct diction is
>> pure anathema -- the polar opposite of the garbled dialect we know as
>> Krooglish. And as we all know, the lesser 'borgs all aspire to osterize
>> language as efficiently as the Krooborg does.
>
> And I didn't even mention "begging the question."

Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...

Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in alight where
they may actually have some competency.

January 12th 06, 05:43 PM

[email protected]

January 12th 06, 06:43 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "124" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> >> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> >> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> >> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> >> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> >> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> >> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
> >
> > Placebo effect?
>
> More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
> evaluation technique".

What about promotion for four decades of a "test" supposed to
reveal differences between audio components that was never shown to do
that by proper scientific experimentation, ( randomised in panel
selection, statistically valid results etc)?
Would you call that promotion of a placebo effect?
Ludovic Mirabel

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 12th 06, 07:01 PM

From: "Arny Krueger" >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:50:00 -0500

>Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard references.

>Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
>actual situation.

If you read my response, which was directed toward Ludovic Mirabel's
comment on Stardavarius violins, there is no 'excluded middle.' I did
not contradict, nor in any other way, challenge any statement that you
made. If you read what I said, I was simply affirming that both Ludovic
and Pooh Bear could be considered correct.

Ludovic understood that.

Say, Ludovic, are you from the former Yugoslavia?

George M. Middius

January 12th 06, 09:06 PM

The lesser 'borgs engage in a lying contest.

> It was still the old stylus; I hadn't changed a thing.

You're just as full of it as Pearce, Normy. Do you want us to lump you
in with duh-Mikey? If so, keep up the hogwash.

Clyde Slick

January 12th 06, 10:58 PM

"124" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> paul packer wrote:
>
>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>
> Placebo effect?
>

Not if it its a different amp.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick

January 12th 06, 11:00 PM

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> From: "Arny Krueger" >
>> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500
>>
>>>Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.
>>
>> Interesting response. Please explain.
>
> Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard
> references.
>
> Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
> actual situation.
>

Then bake for a half hour at 350 degrees.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick

January 12th 06, 11:01 PM

> wrote in message
...
>
> "paul packer" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, > wrote:
>>
>>>Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
>>>spending
>>>huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
>>>ridiculous to those who already know this.
>>
>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>
> That was the kind of improvement my college roommate reported when we
> installed a new stylus in his cartridge. (This was in the 50's) He
> carried on for quite some time, adding further flowery adjectives as they
> occurred to him. The only problem was: It was still the old stylus; I
> hadn't changed a thing.
>

Then you are saying that Paul acutally did not change the amp.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Clyde Slick

January 12th 06, 11:03 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> The lesser 'borgs engage in a lying contest.
>
>> It was still the old stylus; I hadn't changed a thing.
>
> You're just as full of it as Pearce, Normy. Do you want us to lump you
> in with duh-Mikey? If so, keep up the hogwash.
>

I wonder if Mommy tried the same trick when
she 'changed' Normy's diaper. Did he stop crying?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger

January 13th 06, 02:58 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: "Arny Krueger" >
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:50:00 -0500
>
>>Check the meaning of irrelevant and excluded middle in standard
>>references.

>>Then apply them to the portions of your post that should have quoted the
>>actual situation.

> If you read my response, which was directed toward Ludovic Mirabel's
> comment on Stardavarius violins, there is no 'excluded middle.

Just saying that Ludo's post contains no excluded middle argument doesn't
make it so.

>' I did not contradict, nor in any other way, challenge any statement that
>you
> made.

Never said you did. I said that you apparently fell for Ludo's excluded
middle argument.

>If you read what I said, I was simply affirming that both Ludovic
> and Pooh Bear could be considered correct.

Like I said, you were deceived by Ludo's excluded middle argument and
responded to it like it was correct.

> Ludovic understood that.

Yup, he reeled you in.

Arny Krueger

January 13th 06, 03:00 AM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "124" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > paul packer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>> >> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>> >> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>> >> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>> >> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>> >> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>> >
>> > Placebo effect?
>>
>> More nicely and inclusively stated: "Basing perceptions on an unreliable
>> evaluation technique".
>
> What about promotion for four decades of a "test" supposed to
> reveal differences between audio components that was never shown to do
> that by proper scientific experimentation, ( randomised in panel
> selection, statistically valid results etc)?

That would be the "single presentation method".

> Would you call that promotion of a placebo effect?

I would call the single presentation method an incredible sales technique.

paul packer

January 13th 06, 06:23 AM

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>
>No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're basing
>your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
experience.

And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
been invested.

You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
(objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
(subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
entirely.

paul packer

January 13th 06, 06:27 AM

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in alight

Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
self-immolation, Arnie.

Arny Krueger

January 13th 06, 12:37 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>>
>>No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
>>basing
>>your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.

> Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
> come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
> 60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
> experience.

If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

> And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
> unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
> is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
> last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
> listing on Ebay.

Paul, you're not addressing either of the issues that I raised.

> We've all had the experience of buying a new
> component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
> come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
> up.

Speak for yourself. The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

> In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
> unreliable.

I'd like to see you actually address this issue Paul, in some real and
positive way.

> However, that's the transient listening experience, often
> in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material.

Oh crap, Paul retreats into his cocoon of self-righteousness. He's snatched
himself from the brink of introspection again.

> Live with a
> component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
> perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
> been invested.

Sue me for listening with the more-expensive HD 580s intstead of the cheaper
595s. Sue me for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
of an integrated power amp whose design is unknown. Sue me for actually
owning equalizers and knowing how to use them.

> You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
> debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
> easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples.

The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
tests, pure and simple.

> I'm on the
> subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
> of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
> circumstances.

Since I'm a subjectivist, you're preaching to the choir, Paul.

>Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
> (objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
> (subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
> subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
> haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
> order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
> little I understand electronics).

I don't need to do that, its a matter of public record.

>And until that happens, I intent to
> remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
> entirely.

As I conclusively showed at HE2005, the ob/sub fusion has been there all
along. Just read a dictionary.

124

January 13th 06, 01:15 PM

MINe 109 wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "124" > wrote:
>
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> > > Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> > > difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> > > I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> > > more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> > > of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> > > of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
> >
> > Placebo effect?
>
> Placebo effect? "...is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement
> in health not attributable to treatment." Two out of three.

A variant applies to audio.

--124

Arny Krueger

January 13th 06, 01:28 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...

>> Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in a light
>> where
>> they may actually have some competency.

> Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
> self-immolation, Arnie.

Both of those alternatives are completely ridiculous if you look at the
context.

Right, Paul? ;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

January 13th 06, 03:07 PM

From: "Arny Krueger" >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:58:26 -0500

>Yup, he reeled you in.

LOL

[email protected]

January 13th 06, 07:10 PM

paul packer wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> >> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> >> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> >> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> >> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> >> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
> >
> >No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're basing
> >your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.
>
> Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
> come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
> 60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
> experience.
>
> And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
> unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
> is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
> last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
> listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
> component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
> come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
> up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
> unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
> in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
> component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
> perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
> been invested.
>
> You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
> debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
> easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
> subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
> of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
> circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
> (objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
> (subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
> subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
> haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
> order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
> little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
> remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
> entirely.

You're hopelessly handicapped in these earnest exchanges:1 ) you can
stop from time to time and ask yourself:" What exactly am I getting so
het-up about? 2) even worse: you have sense of humour and opportunity
offering itself you'd rather follow it than "win". Whatever there is to
win.

January 14th 06, 07:22 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, > wrote:
>
>>Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so
>>spending
>>huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
>>ridiculous to those who already know this.
>
> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Could be you just expected to, or it could be there was something wrong with
the one that you replaced. Remember, I said electronics "tend" not to
makemuch difference, not that it was impossible.

Did the old amp have considerably less power than the new one?
How old was it?
What sort of load do your speakers present? Perhaps the old amp had
difficulty driving them.
How had it been since the wire running to them had been disconnected,
sometimes oxidation can increase resistance and simply disconnnecting them
removes enough to make an audible difference.
Was the old amp functioning properly?
There are valid reasons why a new amp can cause you to hear difference, it's
just that all things being reasonably equal and with amps not driven to
clipping, real differences are rare.

January 14th 06, 07:32 AM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>>
>>No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
>>basing
>>your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.
>
> Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
> come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
> 60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
> experience.
>
Did you become less human and more machine in that time?
If not, you're subject to the same things as other humans, you can hear
things that aren't really there.

> And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
> unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
> is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
> last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
> listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
> component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
> come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
> up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
> unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
> in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
> component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
> perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
> been invested.
>
Actually you don't, you just get acclimated/

> You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
> debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
> easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
> subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
> of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
> circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
> (objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
> (subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
> subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't,

You were so close, but then you went south.
If it measures well it will sound like it should, transparent.
If it doesn't sound transparent, it won't measure well.

which means we
> haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
> order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
> little I understand electronics). And until that happens, I intent to
> remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
> entirely.
>
We're all subjectivists. The whole DBT protocol is for subjective testing,
it's just making it more relaible.

January 14th 06, 07:33 AM

124

January 14th 06, 01:14 PM

dave weil wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
> > wrote:
>
> >124 wrote:
> >
> >> If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
> >> for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
> >> identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
> >> devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
> >> money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
> >> there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.
> >
> >The correct term is audiophool. ;-)
> >
> >Graham
>
> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
will claim that they are more accurate than watches
from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

--124

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 01:25 PM

124Borg said:

> > So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
>
> Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
> Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
> will claim that they are more accurate than watches
> from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.

Only a tiny mind would conceive of accuracy as the apotheosis of audio
performance. Have you had your "mind" measured, perchance?

paul packer

January 14th 06, 03:13 PM

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:37:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>>>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>>>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>>>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>>>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>>>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>>>
>>>No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
>>>basing
>>>your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.
>
>> Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
>> come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
>> 60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
>> experience.
>
>If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

Silly debating trade answer, Arnie. That 140 IQ Robert claimed for you
is looking more shaky all the time.

>> And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
>> unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
>> is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
>> last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
>> listing on Ebay.
>
>Paul, you're not addressing either of the issues that I raised.

That's probably because we're talking about two different things as
usual.

>> We've all had the experience of buying a new
>> component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
>> come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
>> up.
>
>Speak for yourself. The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
>bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
you expect this court to believe that?

>> In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
>> unreliable.
>
>I'd like to see you actually address this issue Paul, in some real and
>positive way.

I just did.

>> However, that's the transient listening experience, often
>> in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material.
>
>Oh crap, Paul retreats into his cocoon of self-righteousness. He's snatched
>himself from the brink of introspection again.

Back to the debating trade again.

>> Live with a
>> component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
>> perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
>> been invested.
>
>Sue me for listening with the more-expensive HD 580s intstead of the cheaper
>595s.

C'mon, Arnie. The 595 is a more recent model, and in fact more
expensive at actual asking prices. In any case that has nothing to do
with what I actually said.

>Sue me for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
>of an integrated power amp

What the hell is an integrated power amp?

> whose design is unknown.

The Marantz PM8200 is a well respected and reviewed integrated from
2/3 years ago. Hardly "unknown" in design or any other way.

> Sue me for actually
>owning equalizers and knowing how to use them.

And what have equalisers to do with anything? I also own one but only
use it to make old material more listenable.

>> You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
>> debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
>> easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples.
>
>The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
>tests, pure and simple.

Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.

>> I'm on the
>> subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
>> of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
>> circumstances.
>
>Since I'm a subjectivist, you're preaching to the choir, Paul.

See above.

>>Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
>> (objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
>> (subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
>> subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't, which means we
>> haven't yet discovered all the ways we need to test a component in
>> order to explain our subjective impressions (cue Arnie to tell me how
>> little I understand electronics).
>
>I don't need to do that, its a matter of public record.

Yep, the debating trade again.

>>And until that happens, I intent to
>> remain a subjectivist, whilst not however dismissing the objectivists
>> entirely.
>
>As I conclusively showed at HE2005, the ob/sub fusion has been there all
>along. Just read a dictionary.

I wasn't there. Not worth the trip from OZ. :-)

paul packer

January 14th 06, 03:23 PM

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English class...
>
>>> Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in a light
>>> where
>>> they may actually have some competency.
>
>> Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
>> self-immolation, Arnie.
>
>Both of those alternatives are completely ridiculous if you look at the
>context.
>
>Right, Paul? ;-)

You've done it again, Arnie---you've sneakily corrected an error in
your original post ("alight") while replying to a post that
specifically targets that error. Not only that, but once again you've
taken a tongue-in-cheek post utterly seriously.

So you're not only sneaky, you have absolutely no sense of humour.

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 03:24 PM

paul packer said:

> > > ... my evaluation was based on years of listening experience.

> >If I were you I wouldn't be so proud of years of errors.

> Silly debating trade answer, Arnie.

Did I read this right? Did Kroo**** actually klaim that listening to a
system is an "error"?

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 03:25 PM

paul packer said:

> > The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
> >bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.

> So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
> you expect this court to believe that?

Ask him about his siccnentititfc collection of 200 obsolete sound cards.

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 03:28 PM

paul packer said:

> >Sue me

Again? Your display of magnificent cowardice last time was entertainment
enough for years.

> > for using a proper headphone amp, instead of the headphone jack
> >of an integrated power amp

> What the hell is an integrated power amp?

Arnii has forgotten that for Organics, an amplifier is a discrete
*mechanical* device, not an extension of the corpus cyberneticus. It has
become second nature for Mr. **** to insert one of his appendages
directly into an amplifier, thereby "integrating" himself with it.

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 03:32 PM

paul packer said:

> >The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
> >tests, pure and simple.

> Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.

Quite right, at least in human terms. In 'borg terms (e.g. Krooglish),
all sentient individuals are subjectivists. Want to know why? I'll tell
you anyway. Because the only way to attain pure objectivism is to
transcend cyborgism and become a robot. So far, the Hive has not
succeeded in achieving this mythical plateau of feelings-free existence.
Therefore all 'borgs, as well as Organics of course, are at least
partial subjectivists. And as we all know, "debating trade" rule #3
states that a claim is taken to be true unless it is proven false under
all possible circumstances and all conceivable variations. By extension,
unless and until the state of Pure Objectivism (i.e. roboticization of a
'borg or an Organic) is achieved, all that remains is some degree of
subjectivism.

ScottW

January 14th 06, 05:22 PM

paul packer wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:37:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> >
> >The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
> >tests, pure and simple.
>
> Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.
>

Actually, anytime you use a human subject to make the call...in this
case A or B... using their own perceptions... its a subjective test.

Ojective tests require the use of something other than human subjects
to make the judgement... typcially test equipment measuring something.
The outcome is not up to any human subject perception.

ScottW

dave weil

January 14th 06, 07:19 PM

On 14 Jan 2006 05:14:45 -0800, "124"
> wrote:

>> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
>
>Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
>Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
>will claim that they are more accurate than watches
>from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.
>
>--124

You'd do better than conflating "sounds better" or "likes better" with
"more accurate". For instance, I don't know too many tube amp fans
that make the claim that they are "more accurate". Most of them simply
say, "I prefer the sound of tube amps" or, "It makes music sound more
like real music" (which of course is a highly subjective
determination). Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you. After all,
it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today. Until
we understand all of the factors that affect an individual's internal
processing of a music signal, claiming that something is "accurate" is
just talk. People have built-in cultural and physiological biases
built in and you can't necessarily correlate them with spec sheets.

Besides, bringing in "collectors" is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

Another consideration is whether you'd be willing to ask someone to
compare a Swatch with a Rolex in a hundred years. I wonder which will
tell better time...

ScottW

January 14th 06, 07:37 PM

George M. Middius

January 14th 06, 07:56 PM

Scottie yapped:

> my hi-fi sounds way better to me than "real music".

Why did you put "real music" in quotes?

Doesn't this claim put the lie to your adorations of "accuracy"?
Accuracy in hifi is supposed to be the sine qua non of realism.

Clyde Slick

January 14th 06, 08:18 PM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> > The last time I did that it was an Ampex 755 that I
>> >bought instead of a Sony 355, and the year was like 1968.
>
>> So you haven't made an even slightly unwise purchase since 1968? And
>> you expect this court to believe that?
>
> Ask him about his siccnentititfc collection of 200 obsolete sound cards.
>

What the hell! He can take the depreciation off of his perfessional
kompooter konsulting business.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

dave weil

January 14th 06, 08:27 PM

On 14 Jan 2006 11:37:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>dave weil wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2006 05:14:45 -0800, "124"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
>> >
>> >Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
>> >Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
>> >will claim that they are more accurate than watches
>> >from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.
>> >
>> >--124
>>
>> You'd do better than conflating "sounds better" or "likes better" with
>> "more accurate". For instance, I don't know too many tube amp fans
>> that make the claim that they are "more accurate". Most of them simply
>> say, "I prefer the sound of tube amps" or, "It makes music sound more
>> like real music" (which of course is a highly subjective
>> determination). Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you. After all,
>> it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
>> equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today.
>
> Up the sound.... must be a Nashville thing.... anyway... my hi-fi
>sounds way better to me than "real music". When is "real music"
>going to up the sound?

That's a valid viewpoint as well. Some people prefer boomboxes and
huge pumping subwoofers in cars as well. Just shows again the fallacy
of demanding "accuracy" (as narrowly defined by some spec sheet) as
the only benchmark of the quality of a system.

ScottW

January 14th 06, 08:53 PM

George M. Middius wrote:
> Scottie yapped:
>
> > my hi-fi sounds way better to me than "real music".
>
> Why did you put "real music" in quotes?

Because I find the concept of real music as opposed to fake music ...
amusing.

>
> Doesn't this claim put the lie to your adorations of "accuracy"?

Not at all... but it does put to rest any claim of sanity on your
behalf as you delusionally attribute adorations where there are none.

> Accuracy in hifi is supposed to be the sine qua non of realism.

And as I've said...the last thing I want to recreate in my listening
room is the sound of a typical rock venue or club.

ScottW

MINe 109

January 14th 06, 09:06 PM

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2006 11:37:34 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dave weil wrote:

> >> Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you. After all,
> >> it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
> >> equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today.
> >
> > Up the sound.... must be a Nashville thing.... anyway... my hi-fi
> >sounds way better to me than "real music". When is "real music"
> >going to up the sound?
>
> That's a valid viewpoint as well. Some people prefer boomboxes and
> huge pumping subwoofers in cars as well. Just shows again the fallacy
> of demanding "accuracy" (as narrowly defined by some spec sheet) as
> the only benchmark of the quality of a system.

Speaking of Nashville, Mark Knopfler's new duet with Emmylou Harris
shows a singer can pick up a new accent through immersion.

It's not quite a twang, but closer than it was twenty years ago.

Stephen

Clyde Slick

January 14th 06, 09:58 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>

>>
>
> Actually, anytime you use a human subject to make the call...in this
> case A or B... using their own perceptions... its a subjective test.
>
> Ojective tests require the use of something other than human subjects
> to make the judgement... typcially test equipment measuring something.
> The outcome is not up to any human subject perception.
>

Nice... except that to borgs, humans are objects.
Therefore, the tests are objective.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

paul packer

January 15th 06, 12:17 AM

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:32:51 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> >The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
>> >tests, pure and simple.
>
>> Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.
>
>Quite right, at least in human terms. In 'borg terms (e.g. Krooglish),
>all sentient individuals are subjectivists. Want to know why? I'll tell
>you anyway. Because the only way to attain pure objectivism is to
>transcend cyborgism and become a robot. So far, the Hive has not
>succeeded in achieving this mythical plateau of feelings-free existence.
>Therefore all 'borgs, as well as Organics of course, are at least
>partial subjectivists. And as we all know, "debating trade" rule #3
>states that a claim is taken to be true unless it is proven false under
>all possible circumstances and all conceivable variations. By extension,
>unless and until the state of Pure Objectivism (i.e. roboticization of a
>'borg or an Organic) is achieved, all that remains is some degree of
>subjectivism.

I think you're getting into the realm of SF horror movies, George. I
just don't want to know what goes on behind those huge steel doors
with the prominent rivets. :-)

paul packer

January 15th 06, 12:24 AM

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:28:05 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

> It has
>become second nature for Mr. **** to insert one of his appendages
>directly into an amplifier, thereby "integrating" himself with it.

Did you hear the one about the guy in OZ who, whilst doing naughty
things to himself, deliberately grabbed live wires just as he
climaxed. Something about heightening the experience, I guess, except
that in OZ we have 240 voltage, so of course the experience was
heightened into another dimension altogether. True story, and not all
that funny for him.

paul packer

January 15th 06, 12:42 AM

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:27:15 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>> Up the sound.... must be a Nashville thing.... anyway... my hi-fi
>>sounds way better to me than "real music". When is "real music"
>>going to up the sound?
>
>That's a valid viewpoint as well. Some people prefer boomboxes and
>huge pumping subwoofers in cars as well. Just shows again the fallacy
>of demanding "accuracy" (as narrowly defined by some spec sheet) as
>the only benchmark of the quality of a system.

Accuracy can happily remain the benchmark of quality without it at all
bothering the airheads who drive around wearing ear-plugs while they
outrage the hitherto peaceful neightbourhood with various poundings
from hell (music is too generous a term). And why do these people wear
ear-plugs? you ask. So they won't get their ear drums blown out. So
why do they play the music so loud that it might blow their ear drums?
So that the driver's seat will vibrate, something which apparently
pleases their miniscule brains (anyone remember Sensurround?). And if
you think I'm making this up, the info comes directly from an 18 year
old interviewed on a current affairs show. So next time you're enraged
by passing boom box poundings, you can be further irritated by the
knowledge that the culprit isn't even listening to the "music".

paul packer

January 15th 06, 12:44 AM

On 14 Jan 2006 09:22:40 -0800, "ScottW" > wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:37:09 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> >
>> >The irony is that I'm on the subjective side. ABX tests are subjective
>> >tests, pure and simple.
>>
>> Bulldust, Arnie. You're as much a subjectivist as I am a Satanist.

> Actually, anytime you use a human subject to make the call...in this
>case A or B... using their own perceptions... its a subjective test.

Yipes, I think I see the Dark Lord coming....

paul packer

January 15th 06, 12:58 AM

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:32:16 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:51:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
>>>> difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
>>>> I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
>>>> more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
>>>> of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
>>>> of attaining. Am I hallucinating?
>>>
>>>No Paul, you probably either replaced a defective component or you're
>>>basing
>>>your perceptions an unreliable comparison technique.
>>
>> Arnie, you keep repeating this crap. "Defective component" doesn't
>> come into it; I clearly stated that I've been into audio since the mid
>> 60s, so obviously my evaluation was based on years of listening
>> experience.
>>
>Did you become less human and more machine in that time?
>If not, you're subject to the same things as other humans, you can hear
>things that aren't really there.
>
>> And now you're going to say that audio memory is notoriously
>> unreliable, and of course you'd be right. What is reliable, however,
>> is long term satisfaction and pleasure--the pleasure of being able at
>> last to listen to hitherto harsh-sounding CDs I was on the verge of
>> listing on Ebay. We've all had the experience of buying a new
>> component and struggling to convince ourselves we spent wisely only to
>> come to the depressing conclusion after weeks or months that we messed
>> up. In that sense you're right that the listening experience is
>> unreliable. However, that's the transient listening experience, often
>> in unfamiliar surroundings with unknown material. Live with a
>> component for months using familiar CDs and you soon learn how
>> perceptive your initial impression was and how wisely your money has
>> been invested.
>>
>Actually you don't, you just get acclimated/

Actually, you don't, at least not in the long term. Acclimatization is
a middle-term thing, occurring well after initial impressions but
before long term dissatisfaction (assuming the product isn't for you).
But hey, who's to say what's a good or bad product? What perfectly
pleases you might seem to me crap. There's hearing accuity, there's
musical taste, there's personal preferences and expectations. As Dave
Weill has remarked elsewhere, a thudding boom box in a car is hi-fi to
some people. That's why those seeking something better than what
measures well should be left to do so. Unless you can prove your
hearing is at least the equal of theirs, you cannot prove their quest
is misguided. It's rather like those seeking spiritual enlightenment.
To most people they're nuts, but they appear to have a clear idea of
what they're after and they're prepared to relinquish all earthly
pleasures for it. Can YOU prove they're crazy?

>> You know, the weird thing about this whole subjective/objective
>> debate is that there's truth on both sides, but both sides are too
>> easily side-tracked and too often choose poor examples. I'm on the
>> subjective side simply because experience has taught me no better way
>> of judging sound quality than by listening, even in dicey
>> circumstances. Plus years of reading mags like "Stereo Review"
>> (objective), "Hi-Fi Choice" (objective/subjective) and "What Hi-Fi"
>> (subjective) has convinced me that while measurement often explains
>> subjective impressions, it just as often doesn't,
>
>You were so close, but then you went south.
>If it measures well it will sound like it should, transparent.
>If it doesn't sound transparent, it won't measure well.

Is there no mystery in your life at all, Mike? If so I'm sorry for
you. Truly.

George M. Middius

January 15th 06, 01:18 AM

paul packer said:

> >By extension,
> >unless and until the state of Pure Objectivism (i.e. roboticization of a
> >'borg or an Organic) is achieved, all that remains is some degree of
> >subjectivism.

> I think you're getting into the realm of SF horror movies, George. I
> just don't want to know what goes on behind those huge steel doors
> with the prominent rivets. :-)

If you get invited to Dr. Kroomacher's lair, I trust you'll know how to
respond.

George M. Middius

January 15th 06, 01:18 AM

paul packer said:

> Did you hear the one about the guy in OZ who, whilst doing naughty
> things to himself, deliberately grabbed live wires just as he
> climaxed. Something about heightening the experience, I guess, except
> that in OZ we have 240 voltage, so of course the experience was
> heightened into another dimension altogether. True story, and not all
> that funny for him.

Did he hit the ceiling? ;-)

Clyde Slick

January 15th 06, 05:00 AM

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> paul packer said:
>
>> Did you hear the one about the guy in OZ who, whilst doing naughty
>> things to himself, deliberately grabbed live wires just as he
>> climaxed. Something about heightening the experience, I guess, except
>> that in OZ we have 240 voltage, so of course the experience was
>> heightened into another dimension altogether. True story, and not all
>> that funny for him.
>
> Did he hit the ceiling? ;-)
>

Did his come hit the ceiling?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger

January 15th 06, 12:28 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:28:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:28:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Just two audio know-nothings trying to turn RAO into an English
>>>> class...
>>
>>>> Sad but you can't blame them for trying to expose themselves in a light
>>>> where
>>>> they may actually have some competency.
>>
>>> Not sure if you're talking here about indecent exposure or
>>> self-immolation, Arnie.
>>
>>Both of those alternatives are completely ridiculous if you look at the
>>context.
>>
>>Right, Paul? ;-)
>
> You've done it again, Arnie---you've sneakily corrected an error in
> your original post ("alight") while replying to a post that
> specifically targets that error.

You forgot the part where I tried to make an honest man out of you by
eliminating some creative editing.

> Not only that, but once again you've
> taken a tongue-in-cheek post utterly seriously.

Actually Paul, the trick is to up the ante until the loser cries "Uncle".
You just did that and that means I win.

> So you're not only sneaky, you have absolutely no sense of humour.

No, I can just hold a straight face longer than you. ;-)

124

January 15th 06, 05:10 PM

dave weil wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2006 05:14:45 -0800, "124"
> > wrote:
>
> >> So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?
> >
> >Some collectors like watches from brands like Patek
> >Philippe, IWC, and Jaeger-LeCoultre; none of them
> >will claim that they are more accurate than watches
> >from brands like Casio, Timex, and Swatch.
> >
> >--124
>
> You'd do better than conflating "sounds better" or "likes better" with
> "more accurate".

Sorry for any misunderstanding that may have occurred.
The point that I was trying to get across was that
audiophiles should be more like watch collectors. One
should enjoy one's high-status system and not worry
about the amps, CD player, and wires sounding
better than less expensive devices if lab measurements
predict that these devices should sound identical. I have
nothing against high-status or stylish components. Some
people like it. I have always felt that these could be valid
criteria for choosing components.

> For instance, I don't know too many tube amp fans
> that make the claim that they are "more accurate".

I do not know of any.

> Most of them simply
> say, "I prefer the sound of tube amps" or, "It makes music sound more
> like real music" (which of course is a highly subjective
> determination).

I agree with this point. PDF file:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/AmpSpekerInterface.pdf

> Maybe the term "hi-fi" is confusing you.

I do not think so. But no one is infallible.

> After all,
> it's been around for decades and the "sound" of high fidelity
> equipment STILL isn't up the sound of "real music", even today.

I agree.

> Until
> we understand all of the factors that affect an individual's internal
> processing of a music signal, claiming that something is "accurate" is
> just talk.

I respectfully disagree. We understand enough to claim when
amps, CD players, and wires are accurate.

> People have built-in cultural and physiological biases
> built in and you can't necessarily correlate them with spec sheets.

_BINGO_!

> Besides, bringing in "collectors" is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?

Not sure I understand. Please explain.

> Another consideration is whether you'd be willing to ask someone to
> compare a Swatch with a Rolex in a hundred years. I wonder which will
> tell better time...

Well, if parts for the Rolex can be found or made and if there
are still any competent watchmakers around, my money is on
the Rolex. Once again, sorry for any misunderstanding. And
no, I am not being ironic.

--124