"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"JBorg" wrote in message
...
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Mr. McKelvy says:



Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what
one uses. The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's
extensively to update their studio speakers. They did this because
they know DBT's work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them
liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when
deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of
preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The
purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes..
Just as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every
Tom , Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of
asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea that
it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like
not". No other walk of life is so plagued.


Ludovic Mirabel




I apologize to you for making an insensitive response to McKelvy on
this thread, a regular contributor posting from southern CA.

Apologize for your own deeds not mine.

M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.

His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.

An
ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together
to
share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring
us closer even more.

I think it would ber hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
repordcution more than I do.


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Fertler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .




Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.

All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant, whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like Shakti Stones
or some other device for which there is no possibility of an effect, you
shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on the absurdity of it.


It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of flavor we
like.
This isn't science.

Not the way some of the people here do it, that's for sure.