[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:

As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Right, and they are so stupid and arrogant that they can be counted up to
step right up on cue, and expose their ignorance. Here's an example from one
of RAO's leading idiots:


Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Advance sound quality in accordance with what measure or standard?

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?

Except of course, everything doesn't sound the same except perhaps according
to their vinyl noise and tube distortion deafened ears.

We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.

Why gild lillies? Why beat dead horses?

Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

Only if you ignore the serious audible problems with recording, microphones,
playback, rooms, and loudspeakers.

Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.

???????????