[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:10:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 08:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indeed, having bought the NAD as an
upgrade, why did I not hear any improvement in the basic, unmodified
player--- since I'd paid good money for it, shouldn't I have deluded
myself into thinking it was actually better sounding when it wasn't?

It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not.

Hmmmm.../funny to hear that CD players can be "broke" in a way that
doing some dampening can help them out.

Now THAT'S science at its best!


What confuses me about Arnie's quote is that I said the new player
didn't sound better. He then says a possible reason the new player
sounded better was that the old one was "broke".

No, I didn't say that. I said and I have to quote since you are so incapable
of reading and grasping simple meanings, Paul:

"It's possible that your old player was broke and the new player did sound
better. Or not."


I simply want to know
why real world experience appears to fly in the face of Arny's
contention that we're all being fooled by appearances, brand
reputations and our expectations.

Another example of your inability to read and grasp simple meanings, Paul. I
never said that "...we're all being fooled by appearances, (and) brand
reputations...".

My experiences, and much anecdotal evidence, shows there's no pattern of
that at all.

The bottom line Paul is that unless one or the other of the optical disc
players that you are comparing is in really bad shape, you have no way of
knowing which sounds better, worse, or even different.

Please see my comments about Marc's ludicrous means for comparing
turntables. Many of them apply to your optical disc player comparisons.