[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
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.

NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
self..

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.


These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Who determine these ?




.... off to work, be back for more later.



snip...snip..snip..