[Scott[_6_]]

On Apr 1, 7:29=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



You asked for peer-reviewed evidence of the validity of
what you call "audiophile myths". The insinuation here is
that lack of same means that there aren't any because
there cannot BE any, when all it really shows is that
none have been done - that we are aware of.

Not at all. My point is that =A0while the peer-reviewed support for a
scientific approach to audio may not satisfy every dedicated true believe=
r
in anti-science, the peer reviewed evidence that supports their viewpoint=
is
non-existent. They would like to ignore the fact that the original Clark
JAES article introducing ABX was peer-reviewed.

Your points are built on prejudicial axioms about other peoples'
beliefs. We already are aware of those prejudices. You give them away
every time you use loaded language such as "true believers in anti-
science" to describe people who merely have a different opinion about
the meaning of your anecdotal evidence. The real anti science here is
the idea that your anecdotal evidence is actually scientifically valid
and the inference that the lack of evidence in support of ideas that
you prejudicially brand as "audio myths" are invalid due to a lack of
evidencial support even though you know there is no evidence at all
either in support or in conflict with those ideas. That is very anti-
scientific


A friend of mine likes to say "People hear what they want to hear and rea=
d
what they want to read".

Maybe he was including you when he was saying this to you. Or did you
assume you were the exception?


=A0It is very clear to me that people who have
invested $10,000's, perhaps $100,000's, =A0and most of their adult lives =
on
anti-technology like tubes, vinyl, Mpingo discs and Bedini Clarifiers, an=
d
believe that digital can't sound right because of the empty space betewee=
n
the samples, aren't going to read a few peer-reviewed papers and suddenly
have a major change of heart.

This is just rhetoric built on prejudices. Since when are tubed
electronics "anti"technology?" And associating such things as tubed
electronics which clearly actually work! And have been demonstrated to
have objectively measurable characteristics which give them a sonic
signature that many find preferable with things like Mpingo discs is
simply a logical fallacy of guilt by association. Then to make
assumptions about what others who you have prejudicially
mischaracterized would and would not read is really ridiculous.
Especially given the fact that I have actually bought and read such
papers based on your misrepresentations of their content! You are
burning straw men left and right here.


The current round of posts blaming problems that afflict *any* listening
test on just DBTs shows that biases run deep, and that some critics simpl=
y
do not feel constrained by the actual facts or reason in their blind rush=
to
preserve the status quo.

And yet no one has actually done *that.* Another straw man goes up in
flames. When you have the goods. When you wave the sicence flag and
you actually have the science to do so, there is no need to pollute
the web with the ashes of so much burnt straw.