[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...

If true believers are deluding themselves
with the improvements they claim to hear, both by upgrading equipment
and performing tweaks, why do they seem to hear improvements sometimes
and not others?

If a person's perceptions are not grounded in sonic differences, then they
are likely to be affected by other, non-sonic differences. That's
essentially what I've been telling Harry.

You say that sighted listening is unreliable
because the listener could be influenced by the visual impressiveness
or sheer reputation of a piece of equipment, but it can easily be
demonstrated that "audiophools" will often turn their noses up at the
more expensive or better credentialed equipment in favour of something
more modest or obscure--happens all the time.

It's a big universe out there. I can't predict what affects someone the
most. On the "newer, more expensive is always better" side we have natural
human optimism, the high end audiophile press, manufacturers and sales guys
who want to eat, and so on. On the minus side we have buyer resource
limitations, WAF, sentimentality, etc. It's not a one-sided battle for
everybody.

Likewise with tweaks,
some will appear to offer improvement, others not; or they offer
improvement on one piece of equipment but not another of the same type
(a la damping on Harry's CD player but not DVD player).

People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be.

I've
encountered this myself. I once damped the lid of a Sony CD65 player
and the sound improved markedly. Great, I thought, and few months
later I tried the same trick on a NAD CD player expecting similar
improvements. Nope, nothing, it sounded exactly the same. So if
self-delusion is the cause, why was I not deluded into hearing an
improvement in the NAD player?

God knows. I can't read your mind, and I don't know everything that happened
in your life at that time.

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

I'm most confused by this psychological conundrum, Arnie, and
desperately hoping you can offer some plausible explanation.

As I pointed to Harry, it is often possible to figure out how well a piece
of equipment is working. In the case of digital players, it is especially
easy. Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.
=========================
Krueger says to Harry Lavo:
People make their own choices. They can follow science or they can follow
anything else. People who pick unreliable guides are less likely to end up
where they actually want to be
and:.
,,,,Harry seems to want people to think that he is technically
sophisticated, but he can't seem to do relatively simple tests that would
support his claims.
Several old pretences repeated: 1) Krueger has a patent on "science"
and a signpost to "reliable guides" 2) Krueger knows of "relatively
simple tests" for "sonic differences" that Harry ignores but which
would 3) remedy "sighted bias.
The "simple test" must be the ABX (or one of its variants) buried
umpteen times but resurrected from its grave like Phoenix; all
fresh-smelling and polished up.
So just to refresh memories: Recently and for umpteenth time I renewed
my plea for some experimental evidence supporting the validity of this
"test" as a tool for recognition of "sonic differences.
I'll quote myself to show how accomodating I was and still am: On Sept.
7 in the "Is Arny a professional organisation ?" .thread I asked:
":So now we know. It is all about Arny's cherished friend's Ludo's
neglected Versailles manners known elsewhere as Kinderstube.
That is why he has been refusing to answer my simple request for
enlightenment and education like this one:
"Produce one single peer-reviewed paper accepted and
published by such as JAES, (the voice of his "professional
organisation"), that would validate the use of ABX as a tool for
discriminating between audio components".
Let no one say that I do not know how to amend my failings. So here
goes:
"Pretty please, Produce one single peer-reviewed paper accepted and
published by such as JAES, (the voice of his "professional
organisation"), that would validate the use of ABX as a tool for
discriminating between audio components.
Pretty please"
Will this do? Can't wait to hear.
Your bosom pal "Ludo""
There was no answer. For the umpteenth time. No repetition of Krueger's
previous dodge that I must ask the scientist Krueger "politely".Not
even something like "read and answered" or his latest favourite "non
sequitur.noted". (misspelled as "non sequitor") Silly tags that he is
in the habit of sticking in here and there to conceal that he has no
answer.
Should I start saying something like" Unfounded arrogance noted", "Red
herrings again..." and so on?
Ludovic Mirabel.
A further note about arrogance. When I quoted to him outstanding audio
designers of transistor gear such as Meitner, D;Agostino of Krell,
Stuart of Meridian saying explicitly that they aim at equalling the
analogue in their transistor design his answer was:
"Ludo no doubt defines "true audio designers" as those tiny noisy
minority
who still flog tubes and vinyl" (In the "Is Arny a professional
organisation?" thread on Sept 12th.).
They did not answer. I suppose they did not notice Arny Krueger's
existence.