[JimC]

As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Jim

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:
As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?
We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.
Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

So what are you bitching about?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
original vision."



How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?


Mr. Cate, I would like to deliver Mr. Holt's head to Rao in a silver
platter with a red apple stuck in his big yap. But unfortunately
he is a no-show yet again.




Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Jim


In order to see that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask, Mr.
Cate,
for you to clarify what you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty'
control
with regard specifically to double blind testing as qouted above.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:

As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Right, and they are so stupid and arrogant that they can be counted up to
step right up on cue, and expose their ignorance. Here's an example from one
of RAO's leading idiots:


Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Advance sound quality in accordance with what measure or standard?

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?

Except of course, everything doesn't sound the same except perhaps according
to their vinyl noise and tube distortion deafened ears.

We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.

Why gild lillies? Why beat dead horses?

Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

Only if you ignore the serious audible problems with recording, microphones,
playback, rooms, and loudspeakers.

Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.

???????????

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
et...
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
original vision."

How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?

Why don't you ask him, Borglet?

Oh, I forgot you are not important enough for Holt to bother with.

Sorry!

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 08:17, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

Arny keeps score when listening to music.
For the previous symphony, the Violins beat the Bassoons
24-7



The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.


Arny got 4 miles per measure!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 23 Oct, 08:19, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



Why don't you ask him, Borglet?



he is not yet 'up' to your level of borgfeciency

[JimC]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
original vision."




How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?


Mr. Cate, I would like to deliver Mr. Holt's head to Rao in a silver
platter with a red apple stuck in his big yap. But unfortunately
he is a no-show yet again.



In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:
As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved. I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!" Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well. Their
decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Aren't they stupid?

The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

Audio as a hobby is not a "competition", good old insane Arns.

The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

No, it would be, "Which car did you like better?"

Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Right, and they are so stupid and arrogant that they can be counted up to
step right up on cue, and expose their ignorance. Here's an example from one
of RAO's leading idiots:

The funny thing is, good old insane Arns, is that I agree with you on
most things about audio, except the part about not giving people the
ability to make their own choices without ridicule.

So we must be "leading idiots" together. LOL!

Sure. The "anti-objectivists" want to advance sound quality.

Advance sound quality in accordance with what measure or standard?

Whatever standard the listener chooses for themselves. It could be as
simple as, "This goes with my decor better." I know you think QSC amps
are sexy, Arns, but not many would agree with you.

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?

Except of course, everything doesn't sound the same except perhaps according
to their vinyl noise and tube distortion deafened ears.

Nice! You were able to insult anybody who likes listening to vinyl or
tubes! And that wasn't even the topic!

You are The Master of ridicule. You have destroyed audio discussion on
this group. Who, for example, wants to "admit" to liking the sound of
tubes or vinyl, for example, and face the crap you poop on the group
in response? I remember when I was first here I mentioned that I own
several thousand LPs. I explained why I listen to them, which was a
logical decision. I did not claim that they "sounded better", nor did
I make any other claim. Yet I became a "vinyl bigot" and I was
ridiculed by you. There wasn't even a cue for this attack on
preference. You just regurgitated it out of habit, I suppose. Who
wants to admit to being so stupid as to buy an overpriced Krell amp?

Too bad 2pid is too dumb to see that..

We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.

Why gild lillies? Why beat dead horses?

Why not? It's a hobby. People can do as they wish, hopefully without
fear of attack.

Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

Only if you ignore the serious audible problems with recording, microphones,
playback,

Try a recording group, Arns. Several exist and I'm sure they'll
welcome your 'expertise'. Most audio hobbyists are not interested in
music production. That's a separate discipline.

rooms, and loudspeakers.

As I said: everything else is 'solved'. The room can be treated to an
extent, but often the only recourse is a different room, so all we are
really left with to discuss is speakers. So can we assume that you'll
stay out of any discussion not concerning speakers, or will you
continue to ridicule those who have different preferences?

Maybe you could come up with a FAQ: Here is what is OK, here is what
makes you an idiot.

Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.

???????????

It was sarcasm, Arns. There, there, everything will be OK...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 8:59 am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 23 Oct, 08:17, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



The high end audio approach to football would be to not keep score, but
instead ask the competing teams at the end of the game who felt they played
the better game.

Arny keeps score when listening to music.
For the previous symphony, the Violins beat the Bassoons
24-7

The high end approach to fuel efficiency would be to ignore miles and
gallons, but rather ask the drivers whether they felt they had a driving
experience that made them feel that they were fuel-efficient.

Arny got 4 miles per measure!!!

LOL

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
original vision."

How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?


In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?


I find Mr. Holt's remarks arrogant and frustrating.


For example, this comment below from him is so meaningless and
non-sensical that I wonder if his internal organs has begun to self-digest
his own brain in lieu of his advancing age.


"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."


He seems to correlate personal taste as a means to put an end to
audio advancement. Only someone with 2 ounce waffle-head like
Howard Ferstler would make that type of pronouncement. Perhaps
Mr. Ferstler paid him a visit and put his tools to good use.

I apologes about my comment with regard to his head though, it's one
of those spur of the moment deals.

In any case, you did share an interest with regards to what we think
about Mr. Holt's commentary.


Anyone see any correlations between the characterizations of Mr. Holt
and opinions posted on rao by the anti-objectivists in recent years?

Jim


I remain interested hearing your views, Mr. Cate, but in order to see
that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask of you to clarify
what
you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty' control with regards
specifically to double blind testing as you have qouted above.

How does this test maintain honesty and credibility in
high-end audio ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in
the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be
"high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were not a parts of my [Holt's]
original vision."

How does Mr. Holt define ACCURACY ?

Why don't you ask him, Borglet?

Oh, I forgot you are not important enough for Holt to bother with.

Sorry!


Well, you're saying that he feels so high and mighty and he expressed
himself well concerning his views on audio testing.

If you ever come accross the red carpet he walks on, tell him the buck
stops here.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JimC wrote




In other words, you find Mr. Holt's comments somewhat discomforting?

So you need translation of JBorgs words too...
Middiot's supposedly good at translating...give him the job.

ScottW


I understand that this is a delicate time as exacerbated by flying
embers down there in SoCal for you but when it comes to audio
testing, don't forget, you remain a no-show. How else can one
lucidly say this to you ?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:


I remain interested hearing your views, Mr. Cate, but in order to see
that correlation as requested, I think it's fair to ask of you to
clarify what you think Mr. Holt inferred by basic 'honesty' control
with regards specifically to double blind testing as you have qouted
above. How does this test maintain honesty and credibility in
high-end audio ?

I think this lyric is appropriate....


But you seems to forgot to add the title.


I Have NO Money, My Mouth is Drooling, Brother! Lend Me Your Comb


So tired of the straight line, and everywhere you turn
There's vultures and thieves at your back
The storm keeps on twisting, you keep on building the lies
That you make up for all that you lack
It don't make no difference, escaping one last time
It's easier to believe
In this sweet madness, oh this glorious sadness
That brings me to my knees

ScottW

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
ScottW wrote:



I think this lyric is appropriate....


But you seems to forgot to add the title.


I Have NO Money, My Mouth is Drooling, Brother! Lend Me Your Comb

I've still got hair, what a relief.
What have you got? Double twisted helix power cables?

ScottW

I've got aftermarket power cables that made my system sound better.
You, otoh, got hair, Fleas and Aphids living in harmony on top of
your head, what a relish.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning
the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of
voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
standards.



NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented self..


Any questions ?

Have a nice day.










snip.

[nebulax]

On Oct 22, 6:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:

Why "advance" sound quality when everything already sounds the same?
We've hit the wall: 16-bit CDs, QSC amps and wire from Home Depot.
Audio nirvana, no sound advancement required.

So what are you bitching about?


QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
too.

[George M. Middius]

nebulax said:

QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
too.

Sound quality is irrelevant in the world of aBxism.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 06:08, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
nebulax said:

QSC amps? I don't even see live sound guys using those much anymore.
They were built like tanks, but unfortunately they sounded like them,
too.

Sound quality is irrelevant in the world of aBxism.

all you need to know is the score and MPG

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
et...
Arny Krueger wrote:
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning
the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of
voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
standards.

NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
self..

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures to
objective
standards is to take ego out of it.

The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
so" is entirely about ego.

Any questions ?

Indeed borglet, your whole response is about your ego.

Have a nice day.

Borglet, watching you contradict yourself again does make a nice day in
away, except it must really suck being you! My regrets. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:
As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the
acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo
science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress
is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved.

Actually, preservation of the ego is a basic survival need.

I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!"

Sorry, but 12 inches is an objective measure.

Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well.

Yes, they go faster, corner better, and accellerate better than a very high
percentage of all automobiles on the road - as measured by objective means.

Their decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Since the superior performance of vehicles in this class is well known, it
is irrational to claim that this had nothing to do with the purchase
decision. How many people who own supercars obtained them in order to have
poorer performance than a Yugo?

Aren't they stupid?

The assertions that have been presented so far are pretty stupid. Anybody
who believes this kind of posturing is stupid.

Not necessarily. But they have a lot of specific excess wealth. And
it is a fact the Ferrari and Lamborghini are not very good cars in
some ways. Traditionally reliability of both was poor.

At some point in the ladder of ascending performance, reliability becomes
less important. Nobody buys Ferraris because they have 12,000 mile oil
change intervals, for example. ;-)

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote
Arny Krueger wrote:
JimC wrote:



As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years,
which have entailed the discarding of objective standards such as
blind listening comparisons, have in some respects reduced what
used to be "high fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by
Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes." And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener
likes it, that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement,
because different people rarely agree about sound quality. -
Abandoning the acoustical instrument standard, and the mindless
acceptance of voodoo science, were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:

"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
its credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to
submit to the kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind
testing, for example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor
since Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to
progress is comparison of relevant performance measures to objective
standards.

NO.

That is wrong.
It is incorrect.
That is not the key.

Just saying so, does not make it so.

All it is is your egomania working full speed ahead of your demented
self..

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.


These had been plastered and pounded into your knucklehead before.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Who determine these ?




.... off to work, be back for more later.



snip...snip..snip..

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
so" is entirely about ego.


read "preference"

[George M. Middius]

Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment. That's a grand total of zero "tests" for
Yapper. Which is to say that he has yet to participate in his very first
DBT of audio gear.

Furthermore, Scottie has never witnessed a single DBT of consumer audio
gear. Nor has he learned how to design such "tests". And on top of that,
Witless isn't smart enough to understand that no DBT procedures exist
for casual use by consumers that have been proven reliable.

If anybody wanted to know what Scottie's discernment is like, they could
drop by his house and listen to his precious Quad system (assuming
there's room around the pool table in the low-ceilinged basement). Or,
failing a trip to ScottieWorld, they could inquire of certain RAOers who
have already been there and done that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:06 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:
As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published
in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which
have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind
listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one
likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes
it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because
different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the
acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo
science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost
its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to
the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress
is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.
In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved.

Actually, preservation of the ego is a basic survival need.

Therefore, according to you, high-end audio can be considered a basic
survival need.

I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!"

Sorry, but 12 inches is an objective measure.

Sorry, but you're insane.

Let me spell it out, good old insane Arns: they liked one over the
other because, ITO, the seats were more comfortable in one.
"Comfortable" is not an objective measurement. Performance was not an
issue: preference was.

Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well.

Yes, they go faster, corner better, and accellerate better than a very high
percentage of all automobiles on the road - as measured by objective means.

Who cares? The level of performance is legally limited. Around here,
you cannot go faster than 70 MPH on any Interstate, for example. I'm
not aware of speeds over 80 allowed anywhere on the Interstate system.
You can get a ticket for unnecessary acceleration. You can get a
ticket for cornering too fast.

So what you argue for is that a difference of ,000001% distortion
between units is worth it, as that can be measured by objective means.
Yay! The THD race of the 1970s is on again!

Their decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Since the superior performance of vehicles in this class is well known, it
is irrational to claim that this had nothing to do with the purchase
decision. How many people who own supercars obtained them in order to have
poorer performance than a Yugo?

We're comapring two cars in the same class, Arns, and why they
preferred one over the other. Ferrari and Lamborghini do not have
large performance differences. Try to keep up.

I happen to know why they bought them. Can you say "mid-life crisis"?

Aren't they stupid?

The assertions that have been presented so far are pretty stupid. Anybody
who believes this kind of posturing is stupid.

Since you apparently didn't understand the comparison, I'll let this
slide.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 7:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

it must really suck being you!

So who came up with this line first? 2pid, or good old insane Arns?

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
. net...

Arny Krueger wrote:

Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.

Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 12:49, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:


If anybody wanted to know what Scottie's discernment is like, they could
drop by his house and listen to his precious Quad system (assuming
there's room around the pool table in the low-ceilinged basement). Or,
failing a trip to ScottieWorld, they could inquire of certain RAOers who
have already been there and done that.

high ceiling, upstairs, and the pool table is in the other room.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 12:46 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in messagenews:ehtuh3pr4ac38qb8buetthhlnotilqkrcs@4ax .com...

Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment.

I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.

What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment.

I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.

What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

Differences are for other people -- the ones who have decent hearing
acuity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 11:06 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 24 Oct, 08:00, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

The alternative, "My speakers sound better than your speakers because I say
so" is entirely about ego.

read "preference"

Bingo...nothing wrong with that. I've heard more technically
accurate systems with flatter FR than mine.
The just left me flat.....

Did you have to perform a DBT to determine this?

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 13:02, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message

. net...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Wrong. The whole point to comparison of relevant performance measures
to objective standards is to take ego out of it.
Who established and 'decides' objective standard as for example,
frequency response ?

Plan A: Engineers and scientists who have studied acoustics and
psychoacoustics as part of their life's avocation.

Plan B: Anybody with an opinion and a big mouth.

Plan C: anybody from Grosse Pointe Woods with a big anus.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 13:46, "ScottW" wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in messagenews:ehtuh3pr4ac38qb8buetthhlnotilqkrcs@4ax .com...



Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment.

I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.


and demand that others go there

[George M. Middius]

Signal said:

Scottie Witlessmongrel, DBT virgin, yammered:

Still it seems odd that you maintain this anti-DBT crusade

If anybody's forgotten, duh-Scottie has never, ever undergone any DBTs
of consumer audio equipment.

I've never been in space either...but I support the space station.

What differences would you expect to hear between a Krell and a
Bryston or Parasound amp, for example?

Differences are for other people -- the ones who have decent hearing
acuity.

Scott may suffer from 'inadvertent self influence'. Certainly what he
says on political issues is riddled with bias. And fear. And
prejudice.

You are correct, sir. I shouldn't harp on his stupidity all the time
when he has other faults that are just as odious.

It's still the same old multiple standard for consumer DBTs: Everybody
other than Scottie "should" be forced into the blinding rituals. The
'borgs are exempt from this obligation because they've already admitted
they can't hear any differences or don't care if they could. Scottie
probably hopes that by forcing DBTs onto unwilling Normals, we will turn
stupid like him and stop making him feel inferior.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 23, 5:27 pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Oct 23, 4:23 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
On Oct 23, 7:17 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
On Oct 22, 5:22 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Oct 22, 5:05 pm, JimC wrote:
As discussed by Gordon Holt in some interesting quotes published in the
December Stereophile, audio developments in recent years, which have
entailed the discarding of objective standards such as blind listening
comparisons, have in some respects reduced what used to be "high
fidelity" to voodoo science. As stated by Mr.Holt:

"... "good" audio is now often defined as "whatever one likes."
And
since the only measure of sound quality is that the listener likes it,
that has pretty well put an end to audio advancement, because different
people rarely agree about sound quality. - Abandoning the acoustical
instrument standard, and the mindless acceptance of voodoo science,
were
not a parts of my [Holt's] original vision."

Further:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its
credibility during the 1980's when it flatly refused to submit to the
kind of BASIC HONESTY CONTROLS (double blind blind testing, for
example)
that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since
Pascal. .." [emphasis added]

Outside of the ego-centric world of high end audio, the key to progress is
comparison of relevant performance measures to objective standards.

In any endeavor, especially one beyond the basic survival needs, ego
is involved. I have a friend who at one point owned both a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari. I asked which one he liked better. His wife jumped in.
"Lamborghini thinks everybody's ass is twelve inches wide!" Her
husband preferred the Ferrari as well. They both *perform* well. Their
decision was not based on MPG, 0-60 times, skid pad tests, or any
other *objective* measurement.

Aren't they stupid?

Not necessarily. But they have a lot of specific excess wealth. And
it is a fact the Ferrari and Lamborghini are not very good cars in
some ways. Traditionally reliability of both was poor.

I think that was more back in the days when a Ferrari had twelve
single-throated carburetors. Fuel injection and other advances have
made even exotic cars reliable. Not that maintaining a car like that
is cheap, but you know that going in.

But the point is, they should have bought a 1984 Ford Escort. Better
fuel efficiency, and as much performance as they really needed. They
chose their cars for different reasons, and they could afford that
choice, so what business of it is mine? He had a Gulfstream, too, the
idiot.

Maybe you could come up with a FAQ: Here is what is OK, here is what
makes you an idiot.

Everyone knows the best speaker cable is bought at vacuum cleaner
stores, not Home Depot. You silly goose.

Actually the best speaker cable REALLY IS found at vac places
ofttimes.

I don't doubt that at all.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 2:51 pm, Signal wrote:

Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?

2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot whinnied:

Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?

2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.

You always to like to speak for other people?

Please print out this post of yours and tack it up on your cubicle wall.
Then the next time you gratuitously jump into a thread with one of your
quarterwit 'insults' for me or Shushie, you can reflect on your enduring
ignorance of the exalted concept of hypocrisy.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 24, 4:11 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

On Oct 24, 2:51 pm, Signal wrote:

Anything else you want to get "off your chest"?

2pid, FYI that's not an open-ended question.

You always to like to speak for other people?

Thank you for proving the necessity of pointing out the obvious. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Oct, 16:24, "ScottW" wrote:
"Signal" wrote in message



There's this little thing about our state and local fire
strategy requiring requiring able bodied people abondon
their homes to be destroyed by flying embers.....


only three abandoning people were destroyed by flying embers!!!!!

[George M. Middius]

Yapper steadfastly refuses to awaken to his problems.

You always to like to speak for other people?

Please print out this post of yours and tack it up on your cubicle wall.
Then the next time you gratuitously jump into a thread with one of your
quarterwit 'insults' for me or Shushie,

Poor George

Thank you for showing your (that's "you're" in ScottieSpeak) inability
to acquire even the tiniest bit of self-awareness.