Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message
...
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you
getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about
high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as
defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked
about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to
want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned
in the faq.

Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use
to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition
a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF
(rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they
cannot change it. Well they can change the faq.

Dennis



If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not
create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or
rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio
Asylum where dbt's are banned?

A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the
debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a
necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or
disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without
mentioning dbt's?

But how can you give dbt's as traditionally practice such "power" when they
are not unchallengeable?

Well, I see you, Mirabel, Kuller challenging them every day, so why do
you say they are unchallengeable?

Given that dbt's are banned at a lot of forums, I would say that dbt's
don't get nearly enough recognition.


Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi
et al that among other things suggests that a different form of
double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant
differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x
fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt
fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists
might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least.

I think a lot of posters have voiced their opinions on that paper.

Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers
were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as
being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised.
This hardly suggests a search for truth.

Has anyone been able to repeat that experiment and arrive at the same
conclusion?

Rather it has the earmarks of a
rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that
is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is
healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation
to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the
orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it.


I don't think Mirabel or Kuller feel they have been beaten into
submission at all. In fact, the casual observer may even conclude that
Mirabel had everyone else beat into submission .

On the other hand, why not one person has picked up that cable dbt cash
reward?