Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

--124

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
M

yawn

I wrote:

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

--

Margaret von B. wrote:

yawn

No.

Cheers,
124

I wrote:

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

--

Margaret von B. wrote:

yawn

No.

Cheers,
124

124 wrote:
Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

--124

The Mr//Ms 124 (what tantalising secrets are concealed behind this
alias?) piles up reference on reference proving that to the
chapel-members cables, amplifiers etc. all sound the same and everyone
who hears otherwise is just trying to upset the good folk.. They want
PROOF that Dick hears what he says he does or else...
As Margaret von Busen said: "Yawn" . Indeed what else is
new? We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same..
The song one would like to hear for a change would be
something like this: "We acknowledge there are differences between
SOME audio components like for instance loudspeakers and audio
cartridges and we can prove that they are audible to any decent-sized
representative panel using our well tried, golden-ears debunking
techniques, of double blind, level-matched ABX testing.
Amazingly the combative Mr. Aczel (and Mr/Ms 124) have
nothing to say about that.. Perhaps they read Sean Olive's loudspeaker
testing results. Majority of single- blinded :large panel could not
differentiate between very different loudspeakers when asked to A-B
them.
But when not bothered with such testing but just asked:
"Which one do you like better?" the same majority plumped unfailingly
for the two frequency-flat speakers.
Try it with eg. amplifiers?
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:

124 wrote:

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.

Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
certainty that they will sound identical? It is because their ego
will not allow it. If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.

--124

dickie malesweski writes:

...If I spent that kind of money ($200,000) on a power
amplifier...

or if you even HAD that kind of money....

In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.

Maybe if you weren't so ashamed of who you are
and just posted from your home account.....

btw, why are you so ashamed of yourself? (as if we
didn't know)

In an unrelated matter, how was the '05 MS Ride?
How come you didn't receive the Shining Star Award
this year?

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

I'm not qualified to comment on timepieces. I have a relatively inexpensive
Sekonda fwiw. It appears to keep time well enough.

I suppose some might buy a Rolex as jewellery though.

Graham

124 wrote:
wrote:

124 wrote:

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the
golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...bx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...subjectv.htm#4

We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.

Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
certainty that they will sound identical? It is because their ego
will not allow it. If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

In an unrelated matter, sorry for the double post.

--124
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, regretfully (though not to the point of hot tears) we do not
agree. This may be due to my inability to explain myself or to your
inability (?wilful unwillingness?) to comprehend .
Indeed everything does sound the same: to an average listening
panel *trying to ABX*.any audio components whatsoever.
But, as in S.Olive loudspeaker test it no longer does so if they
concentrate on "Which one do I like better?" instead of listening to A
then to B then trying to recollect them while listening to X to find
out if it sounds more like A or like B. This is not how we humans
listen to music. Granted, things are different in the cyber universe.
Nor is it what a pianist does when deciding if he likes a
Bluethner better than a Yamaha.

The point remains. Do you or anyone else know what
differences can be heard when ABXing, by what kind of audience, with
what limitations. Where are the reports of POSITIVE listening tests by
a representative panel? Listening to ANY audio component category
whatsoever. Such reports are called validation. Translation: without
them the "test" is junk journalism. For instance: it was an article of
faith in the ABX chapel that there was no point in comparinng
loudspeakers by ABX because differences were so glaring. Well, Olive's
panelists failed to hear the differences between four very different
speakers - just single blinded. Imagine the outcome with full ABX.! You
do it- my imagination staggers.
You're right- there are no golden ears. Nor is there a
"test" for them. There are only individuals who hear a little more or a
little less than the average. Just like in every other walk of life.
And judging by their products many recording engineers are not at the
upper end of this scale.
Ludovic Mirabel

124Borg said:

We already know that when ABXing everything sounds the same.

Good. I am glad that we all agree on this point. But why do many
audiophiles refuse to accept the idea that when measurements
predict that components will sound identical, it is almost a
certainty that they will sound identical?

You might as well give up on your quest, little 'borg. You'll never
figure it out, and repeating the same babyish whining endlessly on
Usenet won't make up for your shortcomings.

The truth is that you're hopeless. We're all sorry for you, but there's
no solace for you among strangers.

Pooh Bear wrote:
124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another audiophool so very
different from our clever Pooh Bear who ABXes it against neighbourhood
music store violins, hears "no difference" and pats himself on the
back: "No golden ear will take this bear for a ride.
Ludovic Mirabel"

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.

wrote in message
oups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:
124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
golden ear will take this bear for a ride.

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.


It has a better sounding alarm.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and
bad violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

Its easy to hear the difference between good choral groups and bad.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:
124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
golden ear will take this bear for a ride.

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

Arny, Arny you must remember that you once said that loudspeakers were
not worth ABXing because anyone could hear the difference. Well, not
anyone. 200 out of 260 Olive's panelists could not as long as they were
bothered by blinding and answering to "Is A like B?'
But they ceased having a problem once they concentrated on what they
liked best.
Are violins just as "easy" to compare A vs B as loudspeakers? Why don't
you try ABXing them.and report. I trust you'll tell the truth and I'll
even let you off level matching.
Ludovic Mirabel
By the way- what doe GMAB stand for? I'm sure you would not be rude to
your old pal.

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.

Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).

I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
left.

Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.

There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
hold true there.

So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
performs better being stupid?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 00:14:53 GMT, wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:53:42 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

So, the person who owns a Rolex is a phool as well?

If he thinks it's going to tell time better than a Timex.

One could argue that it does.

124 wrote:
M

yawn

124 wrote:
M

yawn

124 wrote:

Goo

yawn

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:
124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Graham

And a virtuoso who buys a Stradivarius is another
audiophool so very different from our clever Pooh Bear
who ABXes it against neighbourhood music store violins,
hears "no difference" and pats himself on the back: "No
golden ear will take this bear for a ride.

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between
good violins and bad violins. It's easy to hear the
difference between two different good violins.

Arny, Arny you must remember that you once said that
loudspeakers were not worth ABXing because anyone could
hear the difference. Well, not anyone. 200 out of 260
Olive's panelists could not as long as they were bothered
by blinding and answering to "Is A like B?'

I'm not buying it Ludo. Prove it with a cite from an online source.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
ups.com
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between
good violins and bad violins. It's easy to hear the
difference between two different good violins.

It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any
better, sonically or otherwise, than any other
well-constructed violin.

Never said better, just different.

Pooh Bear wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
that they have been taken for a ride. Only a few can admit that they
were foolish and bought into the myth. Magazines like _Stereophile_
and _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping audiophiles.
They do give a damn about helping unethical high-end companies sell
their products. These magazines and companies understand this
psychology and ruthlessly exploit it.

--124

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
ride.

RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.

Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
bought into the myth.

Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.

Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
_The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
audiophiles.

Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
manufacturers and dealers.

They do give a damn about helping unethical
high-end companies sell their products.

Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors are
sincere and how many are just running another business.

These magazines
and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
exploit it.

One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
writing staffs.

Truth be known, some of their writing staff needs psychiatric treatment, but
are apparently too proud to ask.

124Borg said:

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
that they have been taken for a ride.

It seethes with class envy. It doesn't use a name. Perhaps its actual
"name" is 1 of 24. Or maybe 4 of 12, which it cleverly rearranged to
throw us off the trail.

Was surf right? Are you wallowing in bicycle grease and fantasizing
about a "GF" and gourmet meals?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

124Borg said:

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
ride.

It seethes with class envy.

Since when is being taken for a ride a sign of being upper class?

124 wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence that it sounds
identical to a $200 receiver, to accept the evidence would mean a
devastating blow to that audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of
money on a power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
that they have been taken for a ride. Only a few can admit that they
were foolish and bought into the myth. Magazines like _Stereophile_
and _The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping audiophiles.
They do give a damn about helping unethical high-end companies sell
their products. These magazines and companies understand this
psychology and ruthlessly exploit it.

Advertising revenue has to be the reason.

As for the quality of reviews, I knew this guy who's local who reviews for a
hi-fi rag. He's fond of the odd 'spliff'. Given the effect that cannabis has
on your hearing perception ( anongst other things ) I wouldn't exactly
consider his reviews to be particularly reliable.

Graham

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.

Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).

I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
left.

Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.

There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
hold true there.

So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
performs better being stupid?

Well argued and probably true account. A real model for a genuine
discussion of issues.
Will keep in mind. Thank you
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
ups.com...

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:23:08 -0500

Oh GMAB Ludo. It's easy to hear the difference between good violins and
bad
violins. It's easy to hear the difference between two different good
violins.

It is not necessarily true that a Stradivarius is any better, sonically
or otherwise, than any other well-constructed violin.

Status, rarity, investment purposes, and other reasons, make them
desirable to the musicians that play them (and that can afford them).

I would imagine that if you plotted all the various Stradivarius
violins on a bell curve for any given parameter (playability, sonic
performance, quality of construction, condition, etc.) some would be a
couple of standard deviations to the right, most would be in the
middle, and that some would be a couple of standard deviations to the
left.

Would those on the left of the Stradivarius bell be any better for that
given parameter than another manufacturer's models that were a couple
of standard deviations to the right on their own bell curve? Probably
not, but the Stradivarius would still cost millions, or likely several
times whatever the other make costs. And if you asked the owner, I'd
imagine that they'd say it was still worth it.

There is also a huge market for antique/rare bows. Some of them are
tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. The same argument would
hold true there.

So is a virtuoso that buys a Stradivarius violin over another one that
performs better being stupid?

Well argued and probably true account. A real model for a genuine
discussion of issues.

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
ride.

RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.

Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
bought into the myth.

Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.

Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
_The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
audiophiles.

Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
manufacturers and dealers.

They do give a damn about helping unethical
high-end companies sell their products.

Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors are
sincere and how many are just running another business.

These magazines
and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
exploit it.

One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
writing staffs.

Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
types of magazines. Maybe he still does.

--124

From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Interesting response. Please explain.

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...

Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
types of magazines. Maybe he still does.

AFAIK Brucie Babes went to sockpuppet heaven.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


124Borg said:

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some audiophiles to admit
that they have been taken for a ride.

It seethes with class envy. It doesn't use a name. Perhaps its actual
"name" is 1 of 24. Or maybe 4 of 12, which it cleverly rearranged to
throw us off the trail.

You are such a complete idiot George. You can't seem to get it through your
head that there's no envy in people condemning the high price paid for
things that don't make any sonic difference.
There is simply the fact that if it works well and actually does improve the
sound of an audio system, no matter what the device may be, nobody really
cares if it's expensive. That's why you don't hear anybody bitching about
expensive speakers, since they actually do make differences and tend to get
better sounding as they get more expensive.

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Of course, this won't stop you from lying about it, again, and again, and
again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

"124" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Krueger wrote:

"124" wrote in
message
ups.com
Pooh Bear wrote:

124 wrote:

If an audiophile spends more than $200 000 US
for a power amplifier and is presented with evidence
that it sounds identical to a $200 receiver, to accept
the evidence would mean a devastating blow to that
audiophile's ego . If I spent that kind of money on a
power amplifier and was presented with the evidence,
there is a very good chance that I would never accept
the evidence.

The correct term is audiophool. ;-)

Which is exactly why it is very difficult for some
audiophiles to admit that they have been taken for a
ride.

RAO used to be full of them. Most of the wised-up or moved on.

Only a few can admit that they were foolish and
bought into the myth.

Cases in point: Morein and Art "Clyde Slick" Sackman.

Magazines like _Stereophile_ and
_The Absolute Sound_ do not give a damn about helping
audiophiles.

Hello, they are profit-making operations that are heavily supported by
manufacturers and dealers.

They do give a damn about helping unethical
high-end companies sell their products.

Exactly. The only mystery is how m any of the high-end snake oil vendors
are
sincere and how many are just running another business.

These magazines
and companies understand this psychology and ruthlessly
exploit it.

One telling fact - the number of psychiatrists and psychologists on their
writing staffs.

Which reminds me, does anyone know what happened to
Bruce J. Richman? Maybe he wrote for one of these
types of magazines. Maybe he still does.

--124

I think he posts exclusively now as Andre Jute. :-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:39:27 -0500

Inability to detect an irrelevant and excluded-middle response noted.

Interesting response. Please explain.


Better yet, PROVE IT!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:23:43 GMT, wrote:

Electronics on the other hand tend not to make much difference, so spending
huge amounts of money on somethig that doesn't make any difference seems
ridiculous to those who already know this.

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

paul packer wrote:

Well, my last component change was an amp, and it's made a greater
difference than all the speaker (or more recently headphone) changes
I've made since the mid 60s. The sound is much better balanced, with a
more solid foundation, a real sense of 3D soundstaging, and the sort
of absence of listener fatigue at high levels I'd given up all hope
of attaining. Am I hallucinating?

Placebo effect?

--124