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!!! :-)

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.

"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.

"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

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" 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 ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

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.

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.

"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

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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"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 ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn" agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

It is undoubtedly the case that many people select equipment based on
irrational influences. Even unseen, the brand/cost of an item, the
recommendation of a salesman, or peer pressure, can influence the decision.
In many cases, the decision is made by a wealthy person who has more money
than experience or perceptual ability.
So what is it that makes this issue so inflammatory and polarizing? THe
exploitation of the concept of "unique sound" by the merchandising
establishment is one cause of irritation. On the other hand, there is the
enjoyment of audiophiles in the exchange of anecdotal listening experiences.
When this activity is condemned on the basis of inadequate controls, it
interferes with the social experience of the hobby.

Some people may wish to keep this argument going forever, because some
people like to argue. Personally, I would be quite satisified if my advice
to others in this forum about hifi choices were not attacked because of the
lack of scientific controls. A person should not be criticized for lack of
authoritative proof unless he claims to be authoritative. Then, an entirely
different standard applies.

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.

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.

In article .com,
"Jenn" wrote:

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.

Begin quote:

Are we to suppose that Horowitz was simply lucky in that the technique
that produced the nuances he liked close up also happened to produce
sounds that the audience liked, though he didn't know what the latter
sounded like?

No luck involved, merely observation and attention combined, of course,
with a formidable talent.

All musicians have to have at least a tacit sense of what is being
projected to the audience.

Which he or she can get from the audience feedback. *He doesn't have to
have any first hand knowlege of what the audience actually hears, only
of what they like.

__

End quote.

Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.

Opps, mea culpa. I remembered that part of the discussion, but I forgot
your sig, and therefore didn't relate that contribution to you. :-)

In article . com,
"Jenn" wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
Complete nonsense, of course. My reply to the other forum is lost in the
ether, but it included the thought that I wouldn't have needed all those
years of study to acquire my performing skills if I'd known this.

Opps, mea culpa. I remembered that part of the discussion, but I forgot
your sig, and therefore didn't relate that contribution to you. :-)

Thanks, but not to worry: it's literally lost and never got posted! I
didn't try again because the post you recall did a better job of
covering my points.

Another post that got lost related my recent experience when I asked
rhetorically if I were wrong to think my two cd players sounded
different. Short answer from the usual suspects: yes!

While musicians are not immune from fooling themselves, it seems insane
to say they don't have sophisticated listening abilities.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
Another post that got lost related my recent experience when I asked
rhetorically if I were wrong to think my two cd players sounded
different. Short answer from the usual suspects: yes!

LOL I'm "shocked"!

Best wishes, Stephen

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"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 ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn"
agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
worst that can happen is that the small difference-oriented
test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
differences.

"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.

"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.

EddieM wrote:
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.




This is one of the few valid assertions that objectivists make. And
should any audiophile decide to delve into scientific research on
audibility of different components they had better do their testing db
if they wish it to be taken seriously by science. I for one am not
looking to do scientific research. Are you?






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.


That is also true. Hearing acuity tests are done blind.








What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?




Nothing. But it doesn't cut it in scientific research.




Scott Wheeler

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

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

"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 ?

You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
Science rules here, and you are all in the dumpster, with the possible
exception of Krueger.

Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"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 ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do. "Jenn"
agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
worst that can happen is that the small difference-oriented
test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
differences.

The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I despise the sound of
QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with respect to those amps,
you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.
By my own standards, my comment cannot be considered authoritative, but it
is still worth consideration by a prospective buyer. Naturally, he should
qualify it with his own ears. If he can't hear the difference that I am so
sure I hear, he should go with his ears and save some money.

ABX is POTENTIALLY (note emphasis) a more accurate method of testing than
sighted comparison, yet, if I understand you correctly, it has lead you to
make the incorrectly formed, and to me, manifestly untrue statement, "All
properly operating amplifiers sound the same." Something is wrong here. All
methods of investigation can be contaminated by bad assumptions. If you were
less certain of what you purport to prove, your results would be more
interesting.

Ultimately, it takes a minimum of three ingredients to be a good scientist:
1. Good experimental procedure
2. An unbiased attitude
3. An open mind
You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
too wrapped up in this.
For me, arguing my beliefs, baiting the bears, and taking it on the chin in
this group is a diversion. It's like sparring for exercise.
What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?

wrote in message

You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
Science rules here

Have I ever denied that science 'rules'? Perhaps you need a lesson in
reading comprehension.

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.

Some forger wrote:

You are all disgusting ****heads, with your petty arguments.
Science rules here, and you are all in the dumpster, with the possible
exception of Krueger.

Intellectual RIPOFF ALERT!


The ripoff is from a coward like you who can't use his or her own
identity to make your snotty comments.

EddieM wrote:

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.

Technically the claim is that sighted tests *can* introduce
unfavorable pre-bais to the equation. A sighted evaluation
can in theory work as well as a sighted one(say if the
person in question has never heard of or cares about the
two options in question) But being 100% or even 80% objective
is rare unles you have a Ben Stein type personality

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.

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."

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.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

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.

Let's consider direct sound from a smallish ensemble with a conductor, and
ignore the ear's different sensity to different frequencies.

On the conductor's left, six feet away, is a violin; on the conductor's
right, twelve feet away, is a double bass. Behind the conductor, twenty
four feet from both violin and double bass, is a listener. The violin is
about .75 feet from the performer's ear; the double bass is about three
feet from the performer's ear; and the violin and bass are about eighteen
feet from each other.

The conductor has the players play so that the sound intensity of both
instruments is the same as he hears it - say 70dB.

The violinist will har the violin at 88dB and the double bass at about 67dB;
the bassist will hear the double-bass at 82dB and the violin at 64dB. The
listener in the audience will hear the violin at 58dB and the double bass at
64dB.

I'd say the notion that live performances can match hi-fi standards is
implausible ... :-)

Tim

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
nk.net...

Not quite. Heh. It's kind of like telling the difference
between a clarinet and an alto clarinet by tone alone.

My daughter is in a clarinet quartet; my wife tells me she can hear the
difference between my daughter's Le Blanc Opus and another player's Buffet
R13 ... both top-quality professional orchestral instruments.

Tim

"Robert Morein" wrote in
message ...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..

What is really wrong with sighted evaluation ?

Nothing, depending on the situation.

The problem with sighted listening is that when the
differences are small, it can be very unreliable.

Taken by itself, that's a very reasonable statement.
The apparent disagreement is that you believe that far
more components fall
into the class of "small differences" than I do.
"Jenn" agrees with me that,
depending upon the individual, this class varies.

That's easy to resolve. No harm is done if you treat a
larger difference like it was a smaller difference. The
worst that can happen is that the small
difference-oriented
test gives an outstandingly strong positive result for
differences.

The harm comes when, in response to my statement that I
despise the sound of
QSC amps, which is actually my specific position with
respect to those amps,
you attempt to disqualify my comment from consideration.

Not really, "Arny is a bad Scientist" Robert. Your statement
disqualifies itself. Obviously, it is based on your hatred
and pent-up desire to attack me and try to destroy my
credibility any way you can.

Robert Morein said to ****-for-Brains:

You are simply too combative, too vociferous, to be a good scientist. If you
were repudiated in a way that resulted in widespread, definitive rejection
of what you think is true, it would be a major blow to your ego. Your ego is
too wrapped up in this.

Can we dispense, once and for all, with the fiction that Arnii Krooger has
some connection to human-style science? He's a religious zealot, pure and
simple. He has co-opted a few notions and phrases from the world of science,
then twisted and malformed them to suit his narrow agenda. Look at his
pseudo-scientific claims about amplifiers sounding the same. It's all based
on a few shreds of data, unsubstantiated by any rigorous investigation. It
boils down to nothing more than "At some point, some individuals were unable
to distinguish some amps under some conditions." Calling that science is
like calling a pancake that resembles an image of "Virgin Mary" a miracle.

If you compare Krooger's scieenecncce **** with real science, you have to
laugh. Compare it with the so-called "intelligent design" dogma, and you get
a lot of parallels.


What is it for you? What make you think that all these middle aged guys, who
like to play with their toys, would benefit in any meaningful way from your
work? Has it ever occurred to you that if you actually did convince them
there was no magic, that their lives might be worse?

This notion is totally lost on the Krooborg. His mental illness is so
entrenched that he doesn't even recognize the concept of enjoying life.
Haven't you heard The Tape?

Joseph O'Blather said:

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.

You are SUCH a dork.

I'm not even going to try to hack through this garbage. You are too far gone
to be reached by reason.