[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:06 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
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.
In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved.

Actually, preservation of the ego is a basic survival need.

Therefore, according to you, high-end audio can be considered a basic
survival need.

I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!"

Sorry, but 12 inches is an objective measure.

Sorry, but you're insane.

Let me spell it out, good old insane Arns: they liked one over the
other because, ITO, the seats were more comfortable in one.
"Comfortable" is not an objective measurement. Performance was not an
issue: preference was.

Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well.

Yes, they go faster, corner better, and accellerate better than a very high
percentage of all automobiles on the road - as measured by objective means.

Who cares? The level of performance is legally limited. Around here,
you cannot go faster than 70 MPH on any Interstate, for example. I'm
not aware of speeds over 80 allowed anywhere on the Interstate system.
You can get a ticket for unnecessary acceleration. You can get a
ticket for cornering too fast.

So what you argue for is that a difference of ,000001% distortion
between units is worth it, as that can be measured by objective means.
Yay! The THD race of the 1970s is on again!

Their decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Since the superior performance of vehicles in this class is well known, it
is irrational to claim that this had nothing to do with the purchase
decision. How many people who own supercars obtained them in order to have
poorer performance than a Yugo?

We're comapring two cars in the same class, Arns, and why they
preferred one over the other. Ferrari and Lamborghini do not have
large performance differences. Try to keep up.

I happen to know why they bought them. Can you say "mid-life crisis"?

Aren't they stupid?

The assertions that have been presented so far are pretty stupid. Anybody
who believes this kind of posturing is stupid.

Since you apparently didn't understand the comparison, I'll let this
slide.