The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.

Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Oh boy! Duck! Incoming!!! :-)

Jenn wrote


Well, I guess it's a toss-up between GM and RM to
take the credit for making them hide and



scream..............


Oh boy! Duck! Incoming!!! :-)

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..
The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.

Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes the
equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or simply
the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look. Such
individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as "cognitive
dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
conflicting feelings.

So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they vary
widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch" does not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the ability to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.

This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be satisfactory
audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has nothing to
do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find them
highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an expert
would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others that there
are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people. In this
regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his unremitting
belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely typical
of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.

The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact: in my
early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.

Robert Morein wrote:
A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
the
equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
simply
the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
Such
individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
"cognitive
dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
conflicting feelings.

So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal
impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
vary
widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is
an
accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch"
does not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the
ability to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as
amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.

This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be
satisfactory
audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has
nothing to
do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find
them
highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an
expert
would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others
that there
are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people.
In this
regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his
unremitting
belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely
typical
of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.

The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact:
in my
early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.

Robert, thank you for these remarks. I think that your thoughts here
are very near to mine. I've been involved in a discussion over at
rec.audio.hi-end that is, uh, "interesting."

I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.
But I agree with what you seem to be saying, in that I don't think that
sighted listening is a univeral impediment. But, I also have found
that CD players sound quite different one from another, so to many, I'm
simply imagining things. I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have different
listening abiliities. Some of these differences come naturally
(perfect pitch for example) and others by experience and training (good
relative pitch for example). I happen to be really sensitive to
differences in the tone quality of instruments and voices, and audio
equipment that doesn't get that right drives me crazy. This, or
course, influences my opinions about audio equipment. I "hear" no
better than do other people; but due to training, experience, and the
way my particular brain works, I hear things that others don't seem to
hear. The same can be said about my conductoral colleagues; we're
simply trained to hear differnetly and in great detail. It doesn't
make us "better" but it does make us different than most, in my
opinion. Some people believe that experience in hear live music as
much as I do has nothing to do with listening to audio equipment; that
somehow listening to music is different in depending on where you are
listening to it (I DON'T mean here differences in room acoustics, of
course.) I simply believe that if you can tell the differences in tone
color live, you can also detect those differneces in stereo equipment.
Others strongly disagree. It all boils down to opinion, and opinion is
at least partially informed by experience with one's idea of audio
perfection, in my case, that is live acoustic music.

I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out. Thanks for your
post.

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
the
equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
simply
the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
Such
individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
"cognitive
dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
conflicting feelings.

So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal
impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
vary
widely between individuals. The ability known as "perfect pitch" is
an
accepted fact. By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch"
does not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the
ability to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as
amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity.

This may explain why some people consider QSC amplifiers to be
satisfactory
audio devices. To me, they are horrible, and plainly so. It has
nothing to
do with the way they look. Hafler professional amplifiers are made of
thin-gauge metal, with equally unimpressive cosmetics, yet I find
them
highly acceptable. Unfortunately, a person who sets himself up as an
expert
would have to be quite exceptional to admit to himself and others
that there
are differences he cannot hear that plainly matter to other people.
In this
regard, Arny is simply an average individual. In spite of his
unremitting
belligerence, his insistence that he is a perceptive equal is merely
typical
of people at large. Arny is an "average", belligerent, joe.

The ability to observe can be acquired. I know this by a simple fact:
in my
early years of hifidom, I was far less capable to discern subtle
differences, even though my hearing was exceptional.

Robert, thank you for these remarks. I think that your thoughts here
are very near to mine. I've been involved in a discussion over at
rec.audio.hi-end that is, uh, "interesting."

I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.
But I agree with what you seem to be saying, in that I don't think that
sighted listening is a univeral impediment. But, I also have found
that CD players sound quite different one from another, so to many, I'm
simply imagining things. I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have different
listening abiliities. Some of these differences come naturally
(perfect pitch for example) and others by experience and training (good
relative pitch for example). I happen to be really sensitive to
differences in the tone quality of instruments and voices, and audio
equipment that doesn't get that right drives me crazy. This, or
course, influences my opinions about audio equipment. I "hear" no
better than do other people; but due to training, experience, and the
way my particular brain works, I hear things that others don't seem to
hear. The same can be said about my conductoral colleagues; we're
simply trained to hear differnetly and in great detail. It doesn't
make us "better" but it does make us different than most, in my
opinion. Some people believe that experience in hear live music as
much as I do has nothing to do with listening to audio equipment; that
somehow listening to music is different in depending on where you are
listening to it (I DON'T mean here differences in room acoustics, of
course.) I simply believe that if you can tell the differences in tone
color live, you can also detect those differneces in stereo equipment.
Others strongly disagree. It all boils down to opinion, and opinion is
at least partially informed by experience with one's idea of audio
perfection, in my case, that is live acoustic music.

I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out. Thanks for your
post.


I believe that many high end designs, particularly analog, turntables, tape
decks, and such were designed not only with sound but also asthetic goals in
mind. Similarly, if you have Krell, and want to add a piece I see no reason
not to go with brand loyalty. Most of the differences in audible sound of
these designs is so minor that nothing is really lost.
Aside from perfect pitch, I think most of audio is a learned or trained
process. I know several string players that can hear the differences between
certain strings. I can not. But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
which most audiophiles will find difficult. It is simply that I play these
instruments and have for 50 years. I have grown very trained in this
particular area.
There is no doubt that, given certain recordings, it is quite possible to
acheive a level of perfection of reproduction that can be very close to live
performance. I have a piano recording that does this on my system. For the
most part compromise rules the day. It is also possible that having a great
deal of experience in live music as you do, that you are able to compensate
these "known" quantities mentally. Performing live music will in essence,
make a good system sound better for some listeners.
That is not to say that recreating a live experience is neccessarily a goal.

Carl

In article ,
"Carl Valle" wrote:

But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
which most audiophiles will find difficult.

Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
high-ranking but not sovereign.

It is simply that I play these
instruments and have for 50 years. I have grown very trained in this
particular area.

You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know
what your instrument sounds like and can rely on audience response to
develop your tone and interpretation.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't really know
what your instrument sounds like and can rely on audience response to
develop your tone and interpretation.

Bologna.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

You missed the suggestion on another forum that you don't
really know
what your instrument sounds like.

This is true for many instruments and the voice. Compared to
what the audience hears, the musican hears a highly
distorted version of the music he makes.

and can rely on audience response to develop your tone
and interpretation.

I would think that one learns that from one's teachers and
cohorts.

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
"Carl Valle" wrote:


But I can tell a trumpet from a coronet, a feat
which most audiophiles will find difficult.


Well, one's a brass instrument and the other's a crown for the
high-ranking but not sovereign.

Not quite. Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.
Or hearing the harmonic interactions between members in a
chior and knowing how to rearrange them to get a specific
sound.

Lots of training. I spent my youth playing music and
singing, for instance, instead of playing video games.
btw - #1 thing you can do to make your child better
in all aspects of their life...

Toss that gaming console. T.V. too if you are so bold.

Carl Valle said:

I believe that many high end designs, particularly analog, turntables, tape
decks, and such were designed not only with sound but also asthetic goals in
mind.

Of course they were. The aesthetic aspect of high-end audio galls the 'borgs
no end. To Them, something that is both expensive *and* attractive is doubly
sinful. They can't help bemoaning the "extra expense" that a beautiful
design entails. To The, a properly moral piece of audio gear not only is
drab and utilitarian, it also looks drab and utilitarian. The less room for
subjectivity, the better the Krooborg likes it.

George "Mona Lisa" Middius wrote :

To Them, something that is both expensive *and* attractive
is doubly sinful.

You are wrong George... this is only because we are nonconformist trash
punks !!!

Example : this is why I prefer this picture of you rather than the very
expensive original.

http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/...k/203_3_lg.jpg

Do you understand NOW ?
Eh idiot ?

:-D

"Carl Valle" wrote in message
...


I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
different
listening abiliities.

Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
lack the necessary hearing abilities. No doubt their
reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
listen critically to atrophy and die. Other evidence that
supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
particularly SETs.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Carl Valle" wrote in message
...


I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
different
listening abiliities.

Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
lack the necessary hearing abilities.



An interesting comment. I didn't know audiophiles were required to pass
a dbt. Are you passing those same tests?




No doubt their
reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
listen critically to atrophy and die.



Really? Your logic is, of course, crap. But you are suggesting that
some people are not skilled at dbts. do you believe this to be true?
That some people will hear differences in abx dbts while others will
not hear them?




Other evidence that
supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
particularly SETs.


Have you done db comparisons for preference between these components
and the ones you favor?





Scott Wheeler

The Big **** thumps its tin drum.

Given how they fail DBTs

In human science, a DBT is an investigative tool. For Krooger and his
kracked-brain religion, it's a morality litmus test.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Jenn: I have found in my profession (I'm a
conductor and college music prof.) that people DO have
different
listening abiliities.

Given how they fail DBTs, it would be the Golden Ears that
lack the necessary hearing abilities. No doubt their
reliance on sight as a crutch has caused their ablities to
listen critically to atrophy and die. Other evidence that
supports this hypothesis includes the fact that so many of
them can't hear what's wrong with vinyl and tubed equipment,
particularly SETs.

If by "golden ears" you mean people such as myself, as presented above,
you couldn't be further from the truth.

Jenn wrote:
Robert Morein wrote:
A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are
translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my
buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

To many other people, perhaps the majority, hifi equipment becomes
the
equivalent of a pet, or a spouse, or subject to "brand loyalty", or
simply
the need to defend a purchase, or an affinity for a particular look.
Such
individuals are prone to the psychological phenomenon known as
"cognitive
dissonance", where the individual has difficulty in resolving these
conflicting feelings.

So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth.

Sighted tests have a variable, namely what happens when the person can
see what's happening, that can be easily eliminated. So it makes sense
to eliminate that variable by using blind testing, in all senses of
that phrase. I can't think of any real reason not to use blind testing;
it would make sense to me that those who consider their listening
ability to be superior would welcome any method (such as blind testing)
that helps the subject focus on hearing and avoid other distractions.

OTOH, for most folks, audio is just a hobby, so it's OK by me that most
folks don't use blind testing when selecting audio gear.

(snip)

I agree that sighted listening can influence a judgement. There are
people who are greatly influenced by the pedigree of a piece of
equipment, i.e. price, flashing lights, size, brand reputation, etc.

And there are other expectations and other things (conscious and
unconscious) in sighted testing that can influence the listener. But as
I said above, most people buying home audio gear are hobbyists and
there's no real need for rigorous testing, given that they just want
gear that pleases them in whatever ways they care about, which could
include the looks, price, etc. of gear, not just how it sounds.

(snip)

I look forward to seeing how this discussion pans out.

This sort of subject has a long history in RAO, going back a decade or
more. If you want to read more, search newsgroups via Google.com.

(snip)

Robert Morein AKA bad scientist said:

"A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his
conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.

Isn't that a lovely ANECDOTE.

He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable
by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy
is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty."

Why mention it? You know full well it is not relevant to the subject
at hand.

"So, IMHO, sighted listening is, for many (but not all) people, a real
impediment at arriving at the truth. On the other hand, they may not
want
the truth. But I disagree with Arny that it is a universal impediment.
Perceptual acuity and objectivity are not universal constants; they
vary
widely between individuals.

Precisely the reason for controlling bias.

The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
accepted fact.


Is that the same as Urbam Myth?

By extension, it is possible that some individuals can
reliably perceive differences that others cannot. "Perfect pitch" does
not
depend upon hearing acuity; it is in the brain. By analogy, the ability
to
hear differences between subtly different components, such as
amplifiers,
cannot be assumed to depend solely upon hearing acuity"

Another reason to control bias.

wrote:
Robert Morein AKA bad scientist said:
The ability known as "perfect pitch" is an
accepted fact.


Is that the same as Urbam Myth?

No.

Robert Morein wrote:

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.

Further, Arny stated on # 53:33 that sighted listening is not a reliable
way to pass or fail a listener in terms of his hearing acuity.

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?


A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

Ie - he thinks it's equally crap. Lol. Actually a nice way
to go into any test, if a bit cynical.

Robert Morein wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

(snip)

A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.

(snip)

schrieb:
Robert Morein wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

(snip)

A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.

(snip)


Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
Very interesting!

wrote:
schrieb:
Robert Morein wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

(snip)

A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.

(snip)


Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
Very interesting!

I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.

schrieb:
wrote:
schrieb:
Robert Morein wrote:
"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

(snip)

A friend of mine does nothing but sighted evaluation, and his conclusions
seem to have objective accuracy.
He couches his evaluations in "review speak", but they are translatable by
me to pertinent correlations with engineering parameters. But my buddy is
exceptional, in the sense that he has no emotional attachment to the
equipment he's listening to. He's in it for the novelty.

I'll add that it's easy to believe that a person is neutral and their
impressions won't be colored by sight and other factors. But the only
way to know if a person is neutral is via blind tests.

(snip)


Yes, the testing blind is interesting, a way to know the fact from the
imagining. I can often imagine to hear clearly a different sound in and
amplifier, cd player and so on. However, when I am not knowing which I
am hearing, the imagining stops and the different sound stops with it.
Very interesting!

I know what you mean. I used to own a comparator and could switch
rapidly between amps, CD players, speakers etc. with one pushbutton.
This wasn't blind testing, but sometimes I'd forget which components I
was listening to, and think things like "That expensive amp does sound
better than that cheap amp," for example, because that idea suited my
expectations and prejudices. Then I'd look closer at the gear and
realize that I was listening to the cheap amp. Anyway, the only times I
could hear really obvious, worthwhile differences was when I was
comparing speakers. Speakers are where the big differences exist, IME.



Yes, this is the interesting part. One imagines different sounds, but
only when knowing what to imagine. When not knowing what is being
listened, the different sounds go away!

Speakers, yes, big differences. In the turntable, the magnetic pickup
and the tape deck, yes, some different sounds. But in the good
amplifiers, the cd player and so on, really no different sounds if the
imagining is gone. And the sound in the wires, the cables, the spikes,
the wooden discs and so on? This is surely a joke, an entertainment not
meant to be serious. It is for a laugh, no?

EddieM said:

The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.


What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might start to
covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".

Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare. Whenever
one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that, try
this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's yammering
and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find that
the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and that's
good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...
EddieM said:

The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.


What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might
start to
covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".

Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They
just
like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare.
Whenever
one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that,
try
this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's
yammering
and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find
that
the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy,
audio or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
that's
good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts.
Life is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.


You are correct. Part of the joy in owning even moderate gear comes from the
visual aspects of design.
I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...

Carl

Carl Valle wrote:
"George Middius" wrote in message
...
EddieM said:

(snip)

Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy,
audio or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
that's
good, right?

(snip)

Life is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.


You are correct. Part of the joy in owning even moderate gear comes from the
visual aspects of design.

Consistent with the above, I'll add that for most people, audio is just
a hobby, so they may as well buy whatever suits them for whatever
reasons they have. If they pay a lot of money for gear that is
overpriced for what it does in a technical, measurable way, it's really
none of my beeswax.

I know I've bought gear a few times because It Was Something I Always
Wanted, and I knew that in some ways, I could've bought cheaper gear
that would've probably done what I needed, in terms of technical
performance. For example, I know several middle-aged people who've
bought older McIntosh gear, because when they were growing up that was
the most prestigious brand at the most prestigious audio boutique in my
town.

I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...

OK by me. It's been so long since I bought anything new (I often buy
used gear) that I'd forgotten that new gear and/or new packaging even
had a smell! ;-)

(snip)

"Carl Valle" said:

I also like the way some of my gear smells. Whatever rocks your boat...



Oh, the smell of burning KT88s in the morning.... ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

George Middius wrote
EddieM said:



The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.


What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might
start to
covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".


That is one possibility, no doubt, as I read the writings over time here and
there.


Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare.
Whenever
one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that,
try
this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's
yammering
and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find
that
the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio
or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and
that's
good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life
is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.



However obvious the motives were, I'd also like to assume somehow
that there might be a sensible reasoning behind their testimony that it is
better to depend on scientifically valid methods to determine if certain
equipment
truly sound different. It's been claimed that in sighted evaluation, the
listener is
susceptible to so many biases that they are easily swayed by these biases
which
negatively affect their ability to choose without prejudice.


I am not at all shifting to discuss abx/dbt here nor am I suggesting it's a
valid
alternative. I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
sighted
evaluation is not a scientifically valid process. Why is the process itself
invalid ?

EddieM said:

I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process.
Why is the process invalid ?

Because it has nothing to do with "science".

Science is for scientists. It has nothing to do with choosing toys, unless
you're an anally retentive nerd who is too insecure to embrace your own
feelings.

George Middius said:

EddieM said:



I'm simply attempting to expound in their declaration that
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process.
Why is the process invalid ?


"Because it has nothing to do with "science".

Science is for scientists. It has nothing to do with choosing toys,
unless
you're an anally retentive nerd who is too insecure to embrace your own

feelings."

How about the people who like to know if they are getting what they
paid for, better sound?

If it costs more and sounds the same when touted as sounding better,
isn't that fraud?
When advertising makes claims for other products regarding their
performance, they have some sort of science to back them up.

I don't know anybody who wouldn't pay more for something that actually
improved the sound.

George M. Middius wrote:

EddieM said:



The Objectivist assert that straight listening or more specifically,
sighted evaluation is not a scientifically valid process for determining
if the audio components (except speakers ?) would sound different.
What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?


Objectively speaking, nothing is wrong with it.

It scares the crap out of the 'borgs, though. That's because They might start to
covet an evil, overpriced piece of "audio jewelry".


Bear in mind that the 'borgs don't really care about audio per se. They just
like to use the topic to wage their impotent version of class warfare. Whenever
one of Them starts ranting about "too expensive" this or "snake oil" that, try
this test: Mentally impute the class envy motive to the 'borg who's yammering
and then see how your view of Their jabber changes. Usually, you'll find that
the borgma is demagoguery, frustration, envy, or a combination of those.

What I think you're missing Mr. Middius, is the fact that those you
call Borgs, are at least as interested in top quality sound as any of
those you call "Normals." If there really were a piece of audio
jewelry, as you call it, that would help in that search, it would be
the Borgs endorsing it and promoting it here.

The class warfare idea is really something that lives in the heart of
your fellow Normals. It is they who love to trumpet how their newest
bit of overpriced, underperforming audio "jewelry" got them a more life
like audio experience. They have to, in order to justify their
constant "upgrades."

I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal. Why try to amputate your emotional response when you're
looking for a toy? It's Normal to maximize your enjoyment of any toy, audio or
otherwise. If you enjoy looking at something, it renders pleasure, and that's
good, right? Let the 'borgs lash themselves and wear their hairshirts. Life is
too short to punish yourself for enjoying your toys.

The thing about sighted evaluation, is that it just doesn't tell you
much about the things that Normals like to brag about.

Borgs know that if they think there might be a reason to upgrade, doing
a blind comparison is much more likely to reveal the possible
differences they're interested in, than sighted ones.

said:

I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal said:

[snip 'borg spew]

By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

Confucius say: When feeding trolls, be wary of frosty flying cat feces.

George Middius said:

Confucius say: When feeding trolls, be wary of frosty flying cat feces.



We don't need that kind of information about your dietary habits. It
does beg the question, what cake goes with feline fecal frosting?

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best
and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems
perform as
they are supposed to and they know more about proper
setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

...at least in your own mind, Sander.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best
and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems
perform as
they are supposed to and they know more about proper
setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-)

..at least in your own mind, Sander.


Let's see:
1. I sleep very well.
2. I enjoy my stereo more, because:
3. I know my system performs as supposed (AND as I intended!).
4. I probably know more about proper setup and how to optimize the
sound than most of what you call "Normals" posting here.

Still, I don't feel very borgish. I don't hear voices in my head, and
my measuring gear isn't attached to my body.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Sander deWaal said:

Sander deWaal May 26, 4:20 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Sander deWaal - Find messages by this author

Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:20:06 +0200
Local: Thurs,May 26 2005 4:20 pm
Subject: Straight Listening ?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

said:



I think those you call Borgs are the ones who sleep best and enjoy
their stereo more, because they know that their systems perform as they
are supposed to and they know more about proper setup and how to
optimize the sound than a roomful of your "Normals."


"By that definition, I'm a borg. Thank you (NOT) ;-) "

According to the fools like Middius, you or anyone who has solid
technical knowledge about audio and uses it, is a Borg.

Is it that you deliberately try to avoid accurate sound that
disqualifies you from Borgdom?

" said:

According to the fools like Middius, you or anyone who has solid
technical knowledge about audio and uses it, is a Borg.


"Agreed".


Is it that you deliberately try to avoid accurate sound that
disqualifies you from Borgdom?


Probably, I don't set the rules ;-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

George Middius wrote:

In reality, why would anything be wrong with "sighted" evaluation? It's
perfectly Normal.

The problem is that they then refuse to admit and/or adjust
for the fact that their emotions are involved. They suddenly
ACT like objective experts when they state their opinion.

Even stating it like "I think the whole experience was better
taking all audio and visual factors into consideration, with
brand X."