Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:6BM0c.95764$4o.117204@attbi_s52...
chung wrote:
They should
know better, but they don't seem to be able to allow even the possibility
that there are real differences and that you might have heard them.

No, they do, that's why they recommend the Harry Lavo's and Michael
Scarpitti's of this newsgroup to do controlled tests to see if those
differences are real. Heck, they even throw in real money to motivate
them, in the case of cables.

I wouldn't even recommend that, though it would be interesting to
see the results. I merely recommend that the Harrys and Michaels
of the audiophlie world simply acknowledge that they *could* be
mistaken about the reality of those 'audible' differences, for the
usual (and scientifically speaking , utterly unremarkable) reasons.

Even Harry has come out in favor of *some sort* of blind testing
for validating audible difference -- albeit in his preferred flavor.
To do so, but then to champion 'sighted' reports uncritically,
seems inconsistent at best. To then misrepresent the 'objectivist'
line, as ruling out the *possibility* of real audible difference,
seems to be wilfilly ignoring all the helpful posts we 'objectivists'
have made for *years* now here.

If anyone says 'the fact that you knew which product you were
listening to invalidates any audible evaluation you may have made' is
ludicrous.

I *think* I can parse that sentence, and the standard reply is,
*you* believing it ludicrous doesn't invalidate decades of
psychological research.


If I gave you those 7 different amps to listen to -- the ones I
listened to 17 years ago -- and if you could not tell any of them them
apart, then your hearing is impaired. I cannot make it plainer.

I understand you perfectly. Do you understand the how you might
be fundamentally mistaken?

That is because no two sounded alike, and most sounded vastly
different. This conclusion was confirmed by a friend who also listened
to them, and heard the same things.

And the flaws in such reasoning have been pointed out to you
numerous times now. You have assumed what you should be *proving*.

After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

Well, yes, of course it was. But alas that doesn't mean that 'sound' was
real. A false positive effect of that nature is by no means
improbable.

The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

Then by all means, feel free to cease doing so. That's what killfiles
are for. I don't btw imagine my replies to you will penetrate your
resistance to scientific fact, which you've established firmly;
I post them for the putative reader who might be following along, perhaps
wanting to see the arguments on both sides.



If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

By themselves, these instructions do no describe a good comparative
listening trial of amplifiers.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...


If I gave you those 7 different amps to listen to -- the ones I
listened to 17 years ago -- and if you could not tell any of them them
apart, then your hearing is impaired. I cannot make it plainer.

I understand you perfectly. Do you understand the how you might
be fundamentally mistaken?

I suggest it is the other way around.


That is because no two sounded alike, and most sounded vastly
different. This conclusion was confirmed by a friend who also listened
to them, and heard the same things.

And the flaws in such reasoning have been pointed out to you
numerous times now. You have assumed what you should be *proving*.

There are no 'flaws' in this reasoning. It was an observation.

After going through these amps several times, I began to note which
ones had a particular sound, and that sound was consistent from one
trial to the next.

Well, yes, of course it was. But alas that doesn't mean that 'sound' was
real. A false positive effect of that nature is by no means
improbable.

Impossible, to be honest.


The point is, it is simply not worth my time to converse with those
who deny that such differences can be heard at all.

Then by all means, feel free to cease doing so. That's what killfiles
are for. I don't btw imagine my replies to you will penetrate your
resistance to scientific fact, which you've established firmly;
I post them for the putative reader who might be following along, perhaps
wanting to see the arguments on both sides.

'Scientific fact'? You call what you offer here as 'scientific fact'?
You sit there behind your computer and tell me what I can hear? I
doubt any scientist would approve of this methodology...

I wonder if there is an aural equivalent to color-blindness....

If you would like, go to an audio shop that carries used products of
this kind, and ask to take them home. Hook them up to a set of Stax
Lambdas through a transformer such as the SRD-7.

By themselves, these instructions do no describe a good comparative
listening trial of amplifiers.

Since I use the Stax headphones with the amplifier, it the ONLY test
that makes sense. I'm the one who has to live with my choice: not you.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...

Well, yes, of course it was. But alas that doesn't mean that 'sound' was
real. A false positive effect of that nature is by no means
improbable.

Impossible, to be honest.

So you have no aural imagination or have absolutely perfect control over
it?

That's like a machine, not a human being.