Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

It's Impossible To Have An Intelligent Discussion With Intellectually Dishonest People

98.85.43.103
Posted on October 12, 2009 at 15:27:38
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Below is a typical discussion between a subjectivist and a so called objectivist about the sonic differences in wires...

Subjectivist: "I just installed some new wires in my audio system that were absolutely amazing in how much they increased the music's perceived clarity, inner resolution, transient response, decay and extention on both frequencey extremes! You'd have to hear them to believ them."

Objectivist: "You're just one more wire fetish wacko, who sees the Virgin Mary on the side of buildings and believes reading tea leaves will reveal your future. Your another foolish victim of the "placebo effect" or your own "expectation bias!" These extraordinary claims you're making about "miracle" wires need to be backed by some sort of scientific evidence. This is all garbage and I'm not buying it.

Subjectivist: "Isn't it equally possible that YOU'RE a victim of the "nocebo effect" and isn't it equally possible your own "expectation bias" is preventing you from hearing the difference in wires?"

Objectivist: "You come here and insult our intelligense with your outlandish "super-wire" claims and your superstitious audio religon. Then you get insulted because we're not stupid enough to believe your nonsense.

Subjectivist: "That didn't answer my question. So again I ask, Isn't it equally possible that YOU'RE a victim of the "nocebo effect" and isn't it equally possible your own "expectation bias" is preventing you from hearing the difference in wires?"

Objectivist: "You're not making any sense. You're repeating questions about pure nonsense that are confusing me. This forum is for the technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. Please try to keep to the topic."

Sadly, one cannot argue with dishonest people who are willing to falsely profess to honestly embrace the unbiased, objective, truth-seeking methods of scientific research in order to determine what the facts are in different areas of audio. Yet in reality they're seen to practice biased, unobjective, non-truth-seeking pseudoscientific in an effort to dishonestly "prove" their biased audio beliefs are correct! True scientific research doesn't cherry-pick which parts of science or tests they'll accept and which ones they won't, but that's exactly what most objectivists do!

Either you embrace the unbiased, objective, truth-seeking methods of scientific research or you don't. This post isn't directed at any one specific person, instead I'm attempting to reveal some of the things many of the "supposedly" scientifically oriented, truth-seeking, objectivists blatantly choose to ignore, even though they're based apon the very same scientific methods they so dearly claim to embrace and use to "prove" that subjectivists beliefs are wrong!

For Example:

1) They ignore the fact that "expectation bias" works negatively too. What this means is "if" someone honestly believes that a person is only hearing a difference because they expect to hear a difference, then the science this person embraces also states they must also believe with equal conviction that the only reason an person isn't hearing a difference is because they just don't expect to!

2) They ignore the fact that the "placebo effect" ( Placebo = Latin for "I shall please") works negatively too. When the "placebo effect" is working negatively it is called the "nocebo effect" (Nocebo = Latin for "I shall harm). This works very similair to "expecation bias" above and essentially boils down to what to what you believe will happen is what will usually happen, either postively/placebo or negatively/nocebo. Whether your consciously aware of your beliefs or not, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. A good example of a placebo would be when a person is given a sugar pill and reports feeling better, because they believe they took medicine. A good example of a nocebo is when a person dies after being bitten by a non-venomous snake, because they believed the snake was venomous.

3) They ignore that there are vast differences in how a medical DBT and a home audio DBT is carried out. Yet they want others to accept the usage of DBT's in medicine as being all the proof required that a DBT's usage in home audio has been proven as being scientifically valid. However the reality is that medical and audio DBTs differ in many ways.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

 I Wouldn't Go There............... - Todd Krieger 20:22:20 10/13/09 (0)
 Everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, right? -nt - soulfood 14:40:28 10/13/09 (22)  Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn nt - bjh 13:40:12 10/13/09 (0)
 Hmmm... Looks like "multiple monikers" policy IS enforced, after all (talking about Bob. Nut)... - carcass93 11:13:45 10/13/09 (0)
 Yes, it is. - kerr 05:03:06 10/13/09 (4)  RE: It's Impossible To Have An Intelligent Discussion With Intellectually Dishonest People - andy19191 02:07:26 10/13/09 (8)  Aren't you the guy who denys the color of an LED matters! - Don Till 20:32:36 10/12/09 (5)  Why not just measure the darn wires???!!! - caspian@peak.org 19:11:24 10/12/09 (9)  So why bother? This forum is just a place to waste your time like "outside." nt - Norm 16:07:57 10/12/09 (1)
I don't think it is, but the irony here is..., posted on October 16, 2009 at 16:20:22
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1420
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 your own arguments apparent dishonesty in the form of you choosing to call individuals who clearly aren't being objective objectivists.

My suggestion to gain credibility as a debater worthy of listening to would be to avoid the name calling and tell it like it is: those ignoring data based on preconcieved notions are not being objective period. Those who refuse to be objective are not objectivists.

It's obviously a slippery slope believing anything anyone has to say ever but most of us have had at least moderate success with this approach. IMO intelligent conversations with dishonest individuals are possible because no one is perfectly dishonest. However, smart people will probably want to more thoroughly check the facts of known liars and pretend know it alls than they would more honest and credible sources. Science is always available as a backup plan when you surrounded by ignorrant or decietful people which in the case of many many subjects is about everyone on Earth.

Let's Discuss, posted on October 16, 2009 at 14:28:56
Diode
Audiophile

Posts: 310
Location: SE Wis
Joined: September 11, 2005
 Instead of whining and crying wolf about supposedly being attacked by thetubeguy, it would be interesting if the Bass Nut would point by point discuss the ideas and contentions that were put forth in thetubeguy's post. I would suspect that the Bass Nut can't with sound reason and logic refute what thetubeguy has to say in regard to objectivists, and that's why the cat has the Bass Nut's tongue.

I will also add my own observation to thetubeguy's and say that I find that objectivists routinely lie and twist the truth when trying to make their case that others don't hear differences in cables and what-not. If objectivists are so confident that they're right, then why do they feel the need to lie in order to prove their point?

I'm confident and I'm not lying., posted on October 19, 2009 at 11:45:29
Hepcat
Audiophile

Posts: 1814
Location: Atlanta
Joined: February 7, 2003
 Sure there may be slight differences in cords, cables, and IC's, but would you bet you could really hear it on a basis more than chance picks?

I doubt it. I've seen and heard it happen to too many great folks with great audio systems.
* I'm like a one-eyed cat peeping in a seafood store *
RE: It's Impossible To Have An Intelligent Discussion With Intellectually Dishonest People, posted on October 15, 2009 at 21:24:20
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 Since when is...

"I know what I hear and am immune to all psyshological effects that are proven to affect humans in every other form of subjective testing."

...an intelligent discussion anyways?

Cheers,
Presto

Hey I had an idea, posted on October 16, 2009 at 09:17:40
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 Name the single largest audio debate (next to audibility of cables)?

Subjectivism Vs Objectivism.

We've see this endless debate (sometimes amusing and sometimes downright ugly)infect numerous forums over the years.

I propose we have an forum called "big debate" or "S&O". All conversations which, regardless of which equipment is involved, that boil down to an "S&O" match are put in this new forum. All other forums can then be S&O (and DBT if applicable) free zones. Let it get ugly. Let it get silly. Let it be what it has always been. Those who post in S&O can enjoy the slings and arrows of entering into such a value-based debate.

Really. It's about as productive as arguing about who's religion is best. Nay, religions actually can find COMMON ground if they fight hard and long enough. There will never be peace between S and O audiophiles.

This would be advantageous for "notorious S & O posters". It would give them the opportunity to be pedantic, pious and pretentious in the S&O room while being reasonably nice in the other forums.

I think such an infectious topic would do well by being in quarantine.

Just my $.02.

Cheers,
Presto
Wrong comparison, posted on October 16, 2009 at 15:27:18
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 It is the objectivists vs. observationalists. Subjectivity comes into play afterwards as to what someone avers is "correct" or "accurate". Regardless of camp, each of us has different weighting criteria for assessing the errors. Two people can be in complete agreement over measurements or observations and reach different conclusions. The difference is that the former group asserts that only what they can measure is valid while the latter asserts that trained listeners can make more precise assessments than limited metrics performed on limited populations of audio gear.

rw

I think this is the forum you're suggesting, right here...(nt), posted on October 16, 2009 at 10:12:01
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

I know this is the main theatre for the war but..., posted on October 16, 2009 at 15:05:44
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 I never thought the S VS. O debate to be, in and of itself, a "Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics."

S Vs. O is a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion imho.

No big deal. I just thought that the S VS O war (and it's generals) would have more fun in their own playground, while making the rest of the asylum forums free from yet another endless (and heated) debate.

Anyays, no matter. I like this place the way it is. I was just brain storming.

Cheers,
Presto

Richard is Dishonest?, posted on October 15, 2009 at 11:52:08
Hepcat
Audiophile

Posts: 1814
Location: Atlanta
Joined: February 7, 2003
 How? I find I agree with his points much more than those who disagree with him.

I'm just sayin'.
* I'm like a one-eyed cat peeping in a seafood store *
Not Necessarily................., posted on October 15, 2009 at 18:24:14
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I find I agree with his points much more than those who disagree with him."

The issue isn't disagreement with his claims of no differences...... I only question his *premise* in regard to audiophiles claiming to have superhuman hearing......... I personally think such people are extremely rare in existence, if not totally non-existent.............


Define "superhuman", posted on October 16, 2009 at 12:03:42
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 What exactly is superhuman hearing?

Would you say a trained listener is capable of superhuman hearing?

I know guys who can walk into the room and just by listening can suggest things that will make improvements in the sound of the system. I can tell when things are wrong but some people can tell when things can get better - do this to the cartridge, move the speaker there, try some spikes on the speakers, etc. There are people much more in tune to this stuff than me. I believe these are learned skills. Are they superhuman?

How well someone can hear is only relevant to a small degree - how well someone recognizes and understands what they are hearing is what superhuman hearing is all about, at least relative to the audio experience. These are learned skills that come from experience.
I Can't............., posted on October 17, 2009 at 18:21:49
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 I'm only responding to those who bring the word up.............


Where Did I Say Richard is Dishonest?, posted on October 15, 2009 at 16:07:33
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 I specifically said: This post isn't directed at any one specific person, instead I'm attempting to reveal some of the things many of the "supposedly" scientifically oriented, truth-seeking, objectivists blatantly choose to ignore, even though they're based apon the very same scientific methods they so dearly claim to embrace and use to "prove" that subjectivists beliefs are wrong!

However I do believe RBNG is a PITA who regurgitated the same thing over & over again & those who think that this type of posting liven things up must have a pretty dull life.

Thetubeguy1954


~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

RE: Where Did I Say Richard is Dishonest?, posted on October 16, 2009 at 06:54:36
Stephæn
Bored Member

Posts: 2137
Joined: September 23, 1999
Contributor
  Since: March 1, 1999
 >>However I do believe RBNG is a PITA who regurgitated the same thing over & over again ...

And that would make him different from ... ?


æ

If the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off.
RE: Where Did I Say Richard is Dishonest?, posted on October 16, 2009 at 09:09:47
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Stephæn,

I'm positive many could & have said or believe if they haven't said it: However I do believe thetubeguy is a PITA who regurgitates the same thing over & over again.

I suppose in many of the Object vs Subject arguments that's true for all of us. :^)
That's a rather disingenuous reply, posted on October 15, 2009 at 20:31:25
mls-stl
Audiophile

Posts: 1621
Location: St. Louis
Joined: April 11, 2006
 The title of your top level post talks about "intellectually dishonest people". The body of your post talks about a group of people you identify as objectivists with RBNG identified by many around here as a prime representative of that group.

For you to now claim there was no inference about his "intellectual dishonesty" requires a level of parsing that only national politicians should undertake.

Just another reminder of how infrequently this forum even begins to approach "technical and scientific discussion."

RE: That's a rather disingenuous reply, posted on October 16, 2009 at 05:51:39
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 mls-stl,

I said from the beginning that, This post isn't directed at any one specific person... for someone to now apply my post specifically to one person i.e., RBNG, is to take my post and use it in a manner I stated specifically isn't how I intended it to be used.

However "if" you'd like to know what I find dishonest about RBNG, I'll give you a couple of examples:

1) RBNG continually "claims" subjectivist audiophiles claim to have superhuman hearing. Without ever supplying any proof of such claims by subjectivist audiophiles.

I don't know one subjectivist or objectivist or that matter, who claims to have superhuman hearing. I also don't recall ever seeing anyone claim that here on AA. So for RBNG to continually make that claim is in my opinion being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

2) RBNG "claims" 30 years of DBTs have proven that no audiophile has ever been able to detect differences in wires or amps when brand names are hidden.

30 years of DBTs have proven no such thing! In fact just the opposite is true. Two years ago Telarc stated online: First, in a blind A/B comparison using their existing ultra high-end converters, the analog output of their custom console, and the DAD AX24 in a session with the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Bishop, Telarc producer Elaine Martone, assistant producer Thomas Moore and two assistant engineers all independently chose the output of the AX24 as obviously closer to its input. In fact, if there was a difference between the AX24's output and its input, it bordered on imperceptible, even in Bishop's carefully aligned ATC monitors.

Ever critical, Bishop repeated the blind A/B test when he returned to Telarc's home studios in Cleveland. Three producers and four engineers evaluated the DAD AX24 and all seven independently selected it as the best converter from among Telarc's cream-of-the-crop converters. "Ten sets of ears, five of which have earned Grammys and the remaining five of which have Grammys in their futures, all independently selected the DAD AX24 as the absolute state-of-the-art," Bishop summarized. "The AX24 is a truly exceptional piece of electronics."

That's 2 seperate DBTs and at least 10 audiophiles who were able to detect when the DAD AX24 was being used! So for RBNG to continually make that claim that 3 decades of DBTs has "proven" no audiophile can detect differences when brand names are hidden is in my opinion being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

I'm sorry Richard. It wasn't my intention to single you out in this thread but considering mls-stl insisted it's what I had already done, I thought I'd show why I believed it was actually the truth in your case.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~


The poster doth protest too much, methinks., posted on October 16, 2009 at 11:54:07
mls-stl
Audiophile

Posts: 1621
Location: St. Louis
Joined: April 11, 2006
 Apologies to Shakespeare.

You Chose To Single RBNG Out & Then Use Shakespeare To Defend Your Actions --Hypocrite! (nt), posted on October 16, 2009 at 13:56:01
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 a

I'm sure..., posted on October 16, 2009 at 14:16:07
mls-stl
Audiophile

Posts: 1621
Location: St. Louis
Joined: April 11, 2006
 ...if RBNG is bothered by my comments he'll let me know. ;-)

Indeed!, posted on October 16, 2009 at 06:28:29
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "1) RBNG continually "claims" subjectivist audiophiles claim to have superhuman hearing. Without ever supplying any proof of such claims by subjectivist audiophiles."

Whether or not he actually said superhuman or not is hardly the matter. Very often audiophiles claim to have "trained" hearing and some are often referred to as Golden Ears. It is completely disingenuous, ie. INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, to dismiss his comment simply based one's interpretation of his choice of the word (if in fact he actually did use it) superhuman. I regularly hear audiophiles make claims about their special hearing or trained listening abilities and this can easily be intrepreted as a superhuman ability.

In fact you have claimed such special abilities.

"2) RBNG "claims" 30 years of DBTs have proven that no audiophile has ever been able to detect differences in wires or amps when brand names are hidden."

Maybe I missing something here but as far as I can tell the link you've supplied is about a converter. RBNG, in the quote you've posted, is talking about amps and wires.

Is it not INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to attempt to disprove RBNG's position by posting DBT results of a converter when clearly, as in your supplied quote, he is talking about amps and wires? I think so.

And BTW it in my opinion INTELLECTUAL DISHONEST to carry on this disertation on his comments and positions when he is not able to participate!
Yes Indeed!, posted on October 16, 2009 at 10:30:38
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Don,

Whether you'll admit it or not, you know there's a vast difference between someone claiming they have superhuman, extraordinary, special etc, hearing and someone simply claiming they have trained their hearing abilities. I find your continual pretense that this isn't the case to be yet another fine example of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.

Even Peter Aczel the consummate objectivist understood about the advantage of having trained ears. Peter said: “The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true. Anyone without actual hearing impairment can hear what they hear, but only those with training and experience know what to make of it, (and) how to interpret it.”

Any audiophile who trains their ears has done just that i.e., trained their ears and nothing else. These audiophiles don't claim to have superhuman, extraordinary, special etc. hearing! These claims of superhuman, extraordinary, special etc. hearing ability comes from you and other objectivists who dishonestly & incorrectly equate a subjectivist's trained ears, with the ability to hear far beyond what's considered to be the normal range of human hearing. Strangly only objectivist make this far-fetched claim.

Not one subjectivist audiophile I know of has ever claimed to have this ability. It's INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST for you Don to claim that's what they mean, especially when you know that's not the truth! As far as I know not one audiophile here on A.A. has ever mad such a claim either. It's extremely INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST for you to claim I've stated to have such special "superhuman" abilities, like you did in this post. I defy you provide some proof to back up your deliberate lie and dishonest assertion. I've never claimed to have the ability to hear beyond what's considered to be the normal range of human hearing! I just claimed to have trained listening skills. These two are differing claims no matter how much you choose to whine differently and you know they are!
=========================================================================
Now Don you're actually correct when you said: Maybe I missing something here... You are missing quite a lot here and I believe you know you are! As your a frequent poster an visitor here I know you've seen what RBNG posts and what his stated postion on DBTs is. Yes it's correct that the link I supplied was about a converter, which I'm sure you'll agree is an audio component. However I did not quote RBNG in my post and it is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST for you to claim I quoted RBNG when I simply paraphrased one of his many comments about DBTs. I should have said audio components an wires in my paraphrase but, I didn't

Any person who frequents PHP knows full well that RBNG has often stated his postion on DBTs. When doing so more often than he not states audio components and wires, not just amps and wires. However if you need some proof here's few examples...

1) ...the results of three decades of DBT's can be summarized as evidence of audiophile hearing abilities -- strongly implying the common audiophile belief that "everything sounds different" is a fantasy. There remains a huge gap between what audiophiles can demonstrate in a controlled listening environment, and the claims of those audiophiles who buy expensive audio electronics and wires, but reject tests.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=50146&highlight=DBT+Richard+BassNut+Greene&r=

2) It is signicant that some or many participants will claim to hear A-B differences during a sighted warm-up audition, but fail to hear differences minutes later under double-blind conditions. This is a consistent result of DBT's -- components sound different until you hide the brand names!

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=53947&highlight=DBT+Richard+BassNut+Greene&r=

3) Based on over three decades of test results, any audiophile who still believes all components sound different when playing music at the same average SPL ... is smoking wacky tobacky

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=49889&highlight=three+decades+of+DBT's+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=

4) Three decades of experiments since the 1970's strongly suggests that's not true -- audiophiles typically grossly overestimate their ability to hear differences among electronic components and especially among wires.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=416222&highlight=three+decades+of+DBT's+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=

5) Three decades of evidence strongly suggests audiophiles frequently imagine hearing differences among components and/or mistake small SPL differences as meaningful sound quality differences during sighed auditions.

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=413999&highlight=three+decades+of+DBT's+Richard+Bassnut+Greene&r=

So no Don it was not INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST for me to actually disprove RBNG's position on DBT results. Quite honestly RBNG's stated opinion on DBTs is simply not true! Three decades of DBTs have not proven that no audiophile has ever been able to detect differences in wires or amps when brand names are hidden! Furthermore as a frequent visitor to PHP I believe you already knew what RBNG's view on DBTs actually was. Therefore I believe you're the one who's being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST in your pretense about of not knowing what RBNG's postion on DBTs was.
=========================================================================
Finally as:

a) I was not the one who brought RBNG into this discussion. If you remember correctly Don, RBNG jumped into this thread.
b) I see at least 3 posts by RBNG in PHP ---two dated today 10/16 and one dated 10/14.

I find your opinion that it's INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST on my part to carry on this disertation on RBNGs comments and positions when he is not able to participate to be an absurd one. In addition I find this entire post of yours to be of the same type of cankerous, nasty behavior that got you banned from the critics forum.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~


RBNG LOVE, posted on October 16, 2009 at 11:49:12
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Whether you'll admit it or not, you know there's a vast difference between someone claiming they have superhuman, extraordinary, special etc, hearing and someone simply claiming they have trained their hearing abilities. I find your continual pretense that this isn't the case to be yet another fine example of your INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY."

Can you tell me the difference between a Golden Ear, someone with extraordinary or special hearing abilities, or someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man?

I mean really Tom they're the same thing! IMO these are things that are applaudable. There's nothing derogatory about such characterizations and as such I very much why you would conclude I am being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST because I assume they are one and the same.

Clearly you wish to deny special or extraordinary hearing abilities yet claim you are a learned and skilled listener.

Whatever! I think you are trying to sly and shifty in order to make such a claim when it suits your purposes on one hand but avoid the hilarity associated with it on the other. Your attempted abuse of verbiage here is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

As far as the RBNG stuff goes I really can't explain your fixation, though I'm sure it's rooted in some deep seeded INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY or confusion. The last thing I want to do is join in on your enamorefest!
RBNG LOVE, posted on October 16, 2009 at 15:49:31
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Don,

I'll answer your question. The difference between a Golden Ear, someone with extraordinary or special hearing abilities, or someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man?

1) Golden Ear Although it might not have started that way, these days this is a negative or derogatory term often used by objectivists like yourself, to decry, disparage or belittle those who've taken the time to train their ear/brain to have better listening skills.

2) Extraordinary or Special Hearing Abilities This implies an innate listener ability that is not learned and is beyond what is usual, regular, or customary. This is NOT what audiophiles are speaking about when they refer to having a trained ear. Extraordinary or special hearing abilities more a correctly definies a prodigy or someone who was absolute pitch or as it better known perfect pitch listening abilities. It's estimated that only one in 10,000 Americans have absolute pitch, whereas virtually anyone without actual hearing impairment can learn to how listen better.

See link on absolute pitch: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/absolute.html

3) A Trained Ear I cannot use your statment of: someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man, because I don't believe people can learn to hear better. People can only hear as well as we do, otherwise people with bad hearing wouldn't need hearing aids because we could teach them to hear better. However one can train their ears to recognize traits or characteristics that a person with an untrained ear would miss. It absolutely amazes me that a "supposed" audiophile/music lover such as yourself has such difficulty with this concept when it's very similar to a singer's or musician's training their ear through intense training, practicing to hear differences between major, minor, diminished, and augmented intervals for relative pitch!

So as you now hopefully understand, these three terms are not describing the same thing at all! So yes I clearly do wish to deny special or extraordinary hearing abilities yet continue to claim I am a learned and skilled listener. Besides where do you get off believing you can tell a subjectivist that what he says he means when he talks about a having a trained ear isn't what he means but, rather it's what you believe he means? The truth is these three terms are not describing the same things and subjectivists who know what they mean have clearly told you so! Don it's you who's now dishoestly trying to be sly and shifty in order to make such a claim that all three terms are the same when it suits your purposes and I find your abuse of verbiage here to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

As far your comments about the RBNG stuff goes I don't wish to comment any further about your dishonest attempts to claim I have a fixation or that I am enamored with him, than to tell you as I told you earlier RBNG jumped into this discussion. Then Hepcat, mls-stl and yes, you Don continued speaking about RBNG and I responded to your posts. I'd say you three, Hepcat, mls-stl & Don Till who's subject heading above is RBNG LOVE, are the ones who are fixated or enamored with RBNG, not me!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

You didn't really answer the question!, posted on October 16, 2009 at 18:31:35
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Don it's you who's now dishoestly trying to be sly and shifty in order to make such a claim that all three terms are the same when it suits your purposes and I find your abuse of verbiage here to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!"

You really didn't answer the question - all you've done is to reveal your confused perceptions and impressions. Amazingly you expect that to pass the mustard! If I was your boss I'd say - YOUR FIRED! And really Tom my purpose here isn't self serving at all, I'm just allowing you to show yourself in all your INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST glory.

Whether a person can actually hear more than most others or has trained themselves to better understand and recognize what they hear better than most others doesn't matter when it comes to recieving praise both groups can be labelled as Golden Ears or deemed to have special or extraordinary abilities.

As to RBNG LOVE, certainly you'll deny he wasn't on your mind when you made the OP?
Yes, he did! nt, posted on October 17, 2009 at 11:48:08
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

You must be having a bad day Tony!, posted on October 17, 2009 at 13:58:19
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 From the response in question -

"1) Golden Ear Although it might not have started that way, these days this is a negative or derogatory term often used by objectivists like yourself, to decry, disparage or belittle those who've taken the time to train their ear/brain to have better listening skills."

At best it's somekind of subjective opinion or impression. In fact it includes name calling and accusations.

It's not a definition and I'm kind of surprised you could miss such an obvious point!

I've provide a definition of a Golden Ear in an ajoining thread. There are other definitions that work just as well that don't include name calling or make accusations.
I think not..., posted on October 17, 2009 at 15:05:01
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 The meanings of words are a social convention. There is no point in arguing about the meaning of a phrase.(*) Given the the term "Golden Ears" means different things to different people, there is no point in using it in any discussion that intends to enlighten anyone on matters audio. It's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of being practical. There are may be people who are too stupid to see this, or too argumentative to provide any useful inputs to the group, but my remarks are not addressed to these people, because it is futile to communicate with them.

(*) With English in its various regional dialects. Some languages have an official body entrusted with defining the meaning of words.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

I'll let you update the Absolute Sound and Wikipedia on your findings!, posted on October 17, 2009 at 17:21:52
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Lame!

Yes I Did! You Just Didn't Like My Answers!!!!!, posted on October 17, 2009 at 10:48:36
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Don,

Just because you don't like the answers I provided doesn't mean I didn't answer your question. To say any different is to reveal your persistent
arrogance and is an outright lie on your behalf. I answered the questions as I believe the proper answers to be. Who the heck are you to say my answers aren't correct? Just because you have a different objectivist view on this matter doesn't make your belief correct. You claim: "If I was your boss I'd say - YOUR FIRED!" I'd respond to you Don like Morpheus did to Captain Lock in the Matrix and say "Then I'm glad you're not my boss."

Don if you're going to continually insist that a "Golden Ear", someone with extraordinary or special hearing abilities, or someone who has learned to hear better and/or recognize sounds better than the normal man, is the same thing, I'd request you please be so kind as to provide some peer-reviewed, published proof that proves your statement is true! Guess what Don, I know you won't be able to because it's just your opinion that these three are the same and it's my opinion that these three aren't the same. Don your claim that your purpose here isn't self serving at all, is just you being dishonest once again. For some reason only you can understand, your nasty behavior that got you banned from the Critics Forum is now fixated on me.

Finally I'll repeat for you one last time RBNG wasn't on my mind when I made the original post. There was someone who came to mind as I was writing my original post but, who that is "The Bored" says I'm unable to say. With that I'll cease any further replies at this area of the thread with you as it's just as waste of my time.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~!

Your subjective take on "Golden Ears" is not a definition. Here is a definition of Golden Ear.., posted on October 17, 2009 at 13:53:22
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 And based upon this definition there should be no question of my integrity as to why I would call a trained listener a Golden Ear. And like I said before I do not consider such a distinction as an insult or a derogatory. Please see bolded text that supports my contention that your comments alone qualify you for this title.

Granted a person who could actually can hear better or more might also qualify for that same distinction as the trained listener provided they could understand and articulate what it is they were hearing.

Golden ear

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A golden ear is a term in audio circles referring to a person who believes that they possess special talents in hearing. Golden ears claim to be able to discern subtle differences in audio reproduction that most inexperienced and untrained listeners cannot, much like trained wine experts can discern differences among wines inexperienced tasters often cannot."

The term has also been lent to titles of ear training CDs, which contain drills which teach the audiophile to identify different frequency boost and cuts, differing compression values, time delays, and reverb times. "The Absolute Sound", a monthly publication of audio products and production techniques, also gives out the 'Golden Ear Award' for products that break new ground in superior sounding audio equipment.

However, while repeated double blind tests have shown that some "golden ear phenomena" are myths, with the purported audible differences being strictly preconceptions on the part of the listener, other double blind tests have shown that many skilled listeners can, indeed discern differences among amplifiers, preamplifiers, cables, turntables and CD players.[citation needed]

An ongoing blind loudspeaker listening program at Harman International's Northridge, CA. manufacturing facilities developed by Dr.Floyd Toole has demonstrated that listeners can be trained to reliably discern relatively small frequency response differences among loudspeakers, whereas untrained listeners cannot. Indeed inexperienced listeners cannot reliably identify even large frequency response deviations.[citation needed]

Dr. Toole's research also indicates that when participants can see what they are hearing, their preferences often change profoundly. If the listener and test administrator don't know which sound source is the favored-to-win candidate, the differences often disappear (or the favorite loses)[1].

Skilled listeners who claim to be able to hear differences among various pieces of audio gear assert that the ability to do so is no different than discerning picture quality differences among cameras, or discerning image quality differences among video display devices.[citation needed]

Other experienced listeners point to "double blind" tests where obvious, audible differences have been purposely built into the test, yet results show most listeners cannot hear them, demonstrating that, perhaps, "double blind" audio tests, while not contaminated by "bias effects," represent a listening context that is so different from the typical listening situation as to render the test not necessarily relevant [1] or even reliable, though of course "blind-testing" remains an extremely useful tool in audio "myth busting."
Personally, I'd say it's intellectually dishonest..., posted on October 16, 2009 at 10:19:15
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...to make the same claims over and over without a shred of evidence or proof to back them up when you're claiming they're backed by objectively by science.

I've never seen anyone refer to themselves as a "Golden Ear", only RBNG using it as a perjorative term.

On the contrary..., posted on October 16, 2009 at 11:09:32
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "...to make the same claims over and over without a shred of evidence or proof to back them up when you're claiming they're backed by objectively by science."

I completely agree with your comment and I think the "over and over" is what makes it right. One can only take something so far before it becomes obvious he is not really reading and considering the comments made by others in response.

On to the topic of Golden Ears. I have known people who were referred to as "Golden Ears", three of whom work for Chrysler Motors, and in fact even the OP of this thread has made claims about how he has trained himself to recognize live sound when he hears it.

Being capable of superhuman hearing, a Golden Ear or a highly trained skilled listener are for all intensive purposes one and the same. IMO it's not a negative or derogatory.

I Wouldn't Go There..............., posted on October 13, 2009 at 20:22:20
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Intellectually dishonest" is a serious charge...... Better leave such judgment to each individual...............


Everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, right? -nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 14:40:28
soulfood
Audiophile

Posts: 1500
Joined: August 9, 2001
 nt

RE: Everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, right? -nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:09:26
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > Everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, right?

Intelligent people generally have the knowledge to know they are intelligent, ignorant people generally have the ignorance to think they are intelligent but there is a significant proportion people in the middle that have the common sense to know they are neither intelligent nor ignorant and to act accordingly. I am afraid that the things audiophiles choose to believe and the reasons why they choose to believe them means they fail to make it into the latter category.
Andy, this study has your name..., posted on October 14, 2009 at 11:05:24
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...all over it.

We all would be really grateful, if you could restrict...., posted on October 14, 2009 at 08:11:01
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... the nonsense you're spreading to Propeller Heads forum. I even mildly enjoy responding to it here.

But please - don't waste time of knowledgeable posters in PC Audio forum with your meaningless tired anti-audiophile BS, like you did recently with Ryelands there, while posting under "hg" moniker. I knew better, and backed away immediately - I guess now he knows, too.

RE: We all would be really grateful, if you could restrict...., posted on October 14, 2009 at 13:54:03
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 I have not been taking much interest here for a while - same old same old - but I have recently discovered that the computer asylum is a rich source of new beliefs.

> ...don't waste time of knowledgeable posters in PC Audio forum with your
> meaningless tired anti-audiophile BS, like you did recently with
> Ryelands...

What do you think Ryelands is knowledgeable about? Do you think what he claimed was supported by his other statements?

If I am anti-audiophile as you claim why do you think I ask and answer questions instead of taking the p*ss and having a laugh? I admit that it can be hard much of the time but I do make the effort and only occasionally fail.
You are clearly anti-audiophile regardless of your protestations and belong with AJ and Mr. Nut...(nt), posted on October 14, 2009 at 13:59:03
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

RE: You are clearly anti-audiophile regardless of your protestations and belong with AJ and Mr. Nut...(nt), posted on October 14, 2009 at 14:45:53
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > You are clearly anti-audiophile regardless of your protestations and
> belong with AJ and Mr. Nut...

because...

For what it is worth, I would consider both Richard and AJ to be closer to you than me. Yes they have twigged that some audiophile beliefs are wrong but they still appear to want to be part of an active home audio community albeit, I suspect, one with more of a pre-audiophile outlook. I don't. They are interested in home audio equipment as a hobby. I am not although a few decades ago I did design and make hi-fi as a hobby. They derive most of their knowledge/information from home audio sources. I don't. My main interest is audiophiles, their beliefs and the market as a phenomenon. I suspect this holds only modest interest for them. Etc...

People have rich and diverse interests and beliefs. I consider your audiophile beliefs to be wrong but find this both interesting and unthreatening. Why don't you see my interests and beliefs in the same way?
RE: You are clearly anti-audiophile regardless of your protestations and belong with AJ and Mr. Nut...(nt), posted on October 15, 2009 at 09:39:23
anthonyh
Audiophile

Posts: 327
Location: NY
Joined: March 9, 2005
 One questiion for Andy-- if you have no interest in home audio equipment, and derive no knowledge or information from it, why do you plunge in with comments on the subject?

To try to feel superior to us audiophiles..., posted on October 15, 2009 at 12:15:05
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...and help make him feel better about himself.

Before he jumps off some bridge.

I am reminded of the conversation a while back, posted on October 16, 2009 at 06:23:49
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 where he was perplexed by the notion of distortion spectra. Naturally, he avoided my question on that topic having asked it twice. Such would only serve to illustrate his lack of understanding.

What is the basis for this observation?

rw

You're right, posted on October 14, 2009 at 16:31:07
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 >I consider your audiophile beliefs to be wrong but find this both interesting and unthreatening. Why don't you see my interests and beliefs in the same way?<

Instead of alternately laughing at and berating you, we should take the time to understand you. I'll take a stab and you (briefly) and you tell me how close I am. Feel free to add anything you like.

You took a scientific approach to audio as a young man, learning all the theories and laws of science as they pertain to audio. You "know" that all cables sound alike (with the usual length, guage, etc stuff in mind). You feel the need to test audio gear in the same way that you would feel the need to test gravity by jumping off a building i.e you are very secure in your knowledge. You swear by the various challenges requiring 100% correct answers in a DBT because that's the only way to disprove the science you learned.

Yes?

From the audiophile side, many of us do not have scientific training, which as it happens is a good thing. We originally "believed" in sonic differences among cables. Those beliefs led us to test same. By whatever means we found acceptable (blind tests or whatever), we've determined that cables can indeed sound different. And now we find that we cannot "unhear" those differences because those who proclaim themselves "scientific" have told us we must. Pepsi will always taste different than Coke, regardless of their identical chemical makeup. In other words, experience trumps theory. We have no fealty to science, which as I said, turned out to be good because having such beliefs would have caused us to stray from the truth. Our initial beliefs became knowledge.

Setting aside your disagreement, does this make any sense? I'm generalizing, of course. Some subjectivists are indeed scientists and I guess you'll have to get their input on how they started on this road. And by the way, I've never witnessed 100% correct answers on a blind test. I no sooner expect to witness that than I expect to witness an "objectivist" getting 100% incorrect responses. On something as complex as music, it would be difficult indeed to be correct all the time. Does that mean this stuff isn't very important if it can't be heard all the time? Well... that's up to the individual.

Sorry for the length of this.
Maybe it's a British vernacular thing, but, posted on October 14, 2009 at 16:18:36
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I did design and make hi-fi as a hobby.

exactly what does this mean? You designed what?

rw

I don't regard you as a threat..., posted on October 14, 2009 at 15:02:46
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 ...more of a buffoon.

Blinded by your arrogance, condescension and what you refer to as "science".

I'm secure in my own knowledge, based both on my background in science and my experience in critical observational listening to more equipment than you can even imagine.

I consider yours closer to AJ/Nut's erroneous beliefs than to my audio equipment knowledge.

RE: Everyone likes to think of themselves as intelligent, right? -nt, posted on October 14, 2009 at 04:11:41
morricab
Dealer

Posts: 4456
Location: switzerland
Joined: April 1, 2005
 Translation: There are those who know and know that they know. There are those that don't know but think they know (eg. you) and finally there are those who are not sure if they know but probably make bad decisions because they don't know.

"Intelligent people generally have the knowledge to know they are intelligent, ignorant people generally have the ignorance to think they are intelligent "

How to sort out then which is which? I know!! Those who write these kinds of posts must be ignorant and think themselves intelligent while those of us who are intelligent would never write such ridiculous statements.

"there is a significant proportion people in the middle that have the common sense to know they are neither intelligent nor ignorant and to act accordingly"


Based on what you said taken literally is that most people are not intelligent (so relatively stupid) and are not ignorant (so they have some experience or exposure to audiophile things) and I am to believe that relatively stupid people will often make a correct decision? I would say the intelligent one who knows about audiophile things is much more likely to make a good decision.

"I am afraid that the things audiophiles choose to believe and the reasons why they choose to believe them means they fail to make it into the latter category.
"

which things exactly do you refer to that audiophiles believe in supposedly? Your imprecise use of the English language leaves much room for interpretation.

Like others here, posted on October 14, 2009 at 06:51:08
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 Andy doesn't like to debate specifics. He'd much rather talk about magic and make indefinite sweeping statements (sound familiar to others here?). When I asked him that same question, he gave this general answer. "Many of those".

Good luck trying him to engage in an intelligent discussion about RFI, device linearity, non-linear feedback behavior, etc. :)

rw

Let me guess which category you think you're in...LOL! (nt), posted on October 13, 2009 at 19:09:42
mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 15929
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003
Contributor
  Since: December 28, 2003
 (nt)

I was afraid something like this was going to happen. nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:43:53
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 nt

I did not doubt it would happen for a moment. nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 19:24:16
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: I was afraid something like this was going to happen. nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:46:55
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 ?
Oh dear. (nt), posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:14:13
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 (nt) means "no text," numbskull.

RE: Oh dear. (nt), posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:45:27
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 Yes I think you are right. The last sentence should preferably be humorous at the expense of audiophiles or at least have an edge.
Oh dear, again....:). (nt), posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:52:59
robert young
Audiophile

Posts: 2226
Location: new york
Joined: October 19, 2003
Contributor
  Since: July 13, 2004
 !!!

Not to worry, posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:51:44
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 It was indeed humorous. ;)

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:40:12
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 11876
Location: Toronto, Canada
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .
Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
Hmmm... Looks like "multiple monikers" policy IS enforced, after all (talking about Bob. Nut)..., posted on October 13, 2009 at 11:13:45
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ...err... Dick. Wire, that is...

Yes, it is., posted on October 13, 2009 at 05:03:06
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 Getting them to state their POV so you can have an intelligent argument is like capturing sunshine in a bottle. So as Norm asks, why bother? You know who the intellectually dishonest people are. You know you'll never pin them down. You know they've spent their lives learning what to think, rather than how to think. Pat them on their pointed little heads and move on. Unless you're engaging them for chuckles, they aren't worth the effort.

On the other hand, the belly laughs are definitely good medicine! ;)

No pun on one of those verbs, er nouns? :) -nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:53:00
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 rw

Sorry, not picking up your meaning, posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:54:28
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 But I am listening to an RLW CD as I type this. "Tulpas", to be specific. Ralf Wehowsky... not sure what the L stands for.... so is that you???

Our names are similar, but, posted on October 13, 2009 at 17:20:35
E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 9838
Location: Central boonies
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
  Since: April 5, 2002
 I'm an rhw.

Think of one individual of the type you thought of in your first sentence - then named later!

rw

Ok - got it., posted on October 14, 2009 at 04:23:57
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 I wasn't thinking specifically of Pat, though... more of a group of people... the ones who can't think without someone telling them what to think. That's enough clues. :)

RE: It's Impossible To Have An Intelligent Discussion With Intellectually Dishonest People, posted on October 13, 2009 at 02:07:26
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > It's Impossible To Have An Intelligent Discussion With Intellectually Dishonest People

It is certainly challenging.

Is it intellectually honest or dishonest to make up what you would like the opposition to have said then debate against that?

What about quoting what they actually say in context, putting your arguments underneath and addressing all points raised?

Even to people unable to follow the technical arguments, audiophiles continually betray themselves by the way they address points of disagreement.
Nothing is made up - go to HA, and read an arbitrary thread involving cables as subject, for instance., posted on October 13, 2009 at 10:51:17
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 You'll see those exact arguments from the "scientist" regulars there, as in Tubeguy's imaginary dialogue.

But, speaking of dishonest (intellectually or otherwise) - I'm 100% sure you already know that.

RE: Nothing is made up - go to HA, and read an arbitrary thread involving cables as subject, for instance., posted on October 13, 2009 at 16:13:21
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > You'll see those exact arguments from the "scientist" regulars there, as
> in Tubeguy's imaginary dialogue.

In which case both you and tubeguy will have no problem quoting them in context to support your arguments.
RE: Nothing is made up - go to HA, and read an arbitrary thread involving cables as subject, for instance., posted on October 14, 2009 at 13:47:20
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Andy,

If you have a differing postion so be it but, please don't lie! I did not quote anyone out of context to support my argument! It was an "imaginary dialogue" between an objectivist and a subjectivist, period. Single or double quotation marks are used to denote either speech or a quotation.

I was using the quotation marks to denote the fictional speech between an objectivist and a subjectivist. It's was not used to quote anyone's specific statement. Geesh I thought you were smarter than this...

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

In other words, you're asking for proof., posted on October 13, 2009 at 20:55:28
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 My response would be the same as to Pat D., for instance, on the subject of "proof of audible differences":

YOU NEED IT - GO GET IT.

RE: In other words, you're asking for proof., posted on October 14, 2009 at 13:16:15
andy19191
Audiophile

Posts: 158
Location: Europe
Joined: June 26, 2008
 > In other words, you're asking for proof.

Not really. I was simply pointing out to TG54 what intellectual honesty/dishonesty means using his own post as an example in the hope he would attempt a rebuttal and reveal more about how he sees things.

Perhaps he is getting a bit wiser in not digging himself into a deeper hole. I notice you have toned down your replies also demonstrating some capacity to learn. Perhaps audiophiles are not really lost causes?
Why should we look for evidence for your assertions? (nt), posted on October 14, 2009 at 08:28:20
Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 7558
Joined: June 20, 2000
 .

"Probability is the very guide to life."---Cicero
Simple answers are often the most powerful, posted on October 14, 2009 at 09:20:35
kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 3695
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003
 Go to Hydrogen Audio, as you were advised. You can't miss the proof.

Here you go with "No understand any English", Pat - again. N/T, posted on October 14, 2009 at 08:35:47
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 N/T

Aren't you the guy who denys the color of an LED matters!, posted on October 12, 2009 at 20:32:36
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 I find it intellectually dishonest, in light of this post and a host of others, that you could even consider yourself a subjectivist.

Why a subjectivist would give a hoot what some mythical imagined objectivist believes, or even a real one, or even another subjectivist believes is beyond me.

I hear your kind of whinning often from those professing the importance of the live reference. What you and other of your ilk seem forget is that such a philosophy requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone. Without such a rigorous methodology you really aren't doing much different than just about any other guy who buys a stereo based on how good it makes his records sound - you live reference guys just use the same set of records as if somehow that gives somekind of greater credibility to what you end up throwing together.

I find that intellectually dishonest too!

And please don't bother to respond as I agree - it is impossible to have a conversation with intellectually dishonest people.
Yes I Am!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:32:52
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 First & forement Don, for once you're actually correct! I do not believe the color of an LED has an effect on an audio components sonics. So obviously an LED doesn't matter except for aesthetic purposes. Of course if you're one of those people who believes the prettier, more expensive audio component ALWAYS sounds better, than perhaps for you it's possible to convince yourself that an LED's color will effect a component's sound quality but, for me and anyone else who uses live, unamplified music as a reference standard it's a non-issue.

Next, Don I'll respond to your foolishness anytime and everytime I choose to! I'll do it especially quickly ---{like now}--- when you choose to make outlandish and idiotic comments about the posts I've made! Now concerning your comment: "I find it intellectually dishonest, in light of this post and a host of others, that you could even consider yourself a subjectist." This comment of yours makes it quite obvious to me that you haven't the slightest idea of what a subjectivist really is in regards to audio! I'm an audio subjectivist but, I don't outright dismiss science like many objectivists falsely proclaim subjectivists do. A lot of useful information can be gleaned from objective scientific tests, measurements and specifications in the arena of audio.

What makes me an audio subjectivist is the fact that I use the subjective element my audio experience as the ultimate criterion of what's right and wrong in my audio experience. Thus if I was confronted with objective scientific tests, measurements and/or specifications that revealed a solid state amplifier as being supposedly better than a compareable tubed amplifier and upon listening "if" I found the tubed amp sounded more like live, unamplified music. I'd trust what I subjectively heard over the objective scientific tests, measurements and/or specifications, use my ear as the final arbitrator and decide subjectively that the tubed amp was better of the two amplifiers, when it came to replicating the sound of live, unamplified music realistically!

I was absolutely flabbergasted when you stated: What you (thetubeguy) and other of your ilk ---{people who profess the importance of using live music as a reference standard}--- seem forget is that such a philosophy requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone. How did you possibly come to such a preposterous conclusion? As you've stated it needs to be done Don, if one decides to use live, unamplified music as a reference standard, please clearly define what type of rigorous scientific methodology you believe is needed and how it needs to be carried out!

I can tell you from personal experince that no rigorous scientific methodology is needed at all! If one decides to use live, unamplified music as a reference standard, that person just needs to attend as many different type ---{folk, jazz, classical, rock, etc.}--- live, unamplified, musical events, in as many different settings ---{outdoors, small rooms, large rooms, concert halls, auditoriums, etc.}--- as frequently as possible in order to train or teach their ear/brain what different live, unamplified instruments and singers sound like in different settings.

Your other conclusions drawn are equally as ludicrous: #1) Without such a rigorous methodology you really aren't doing much different than just about any other guy who buys a stereo based on how good it makes his records sound - Please explain how you came to this conclusion as well. #2) You live reference guys just use the same set of records as if somehow that gives some kind of greater credibility to what you end up throwing together. How in GOD's name to you ever come to this assinine conclusion? What's the same set of records we use? Who ever stated here that a certain set of records they own gives gives them some kind of greater credibility?

I'm a proponent of using live, unamplified music as a reference standard and I don't have one certain set of records I use. Most recordings (not all) whether they're my recording or what a friend brought over, sound great on my system! If it's a good recording it sounds good, if it's a great recording it sounds great, if it's a crappy recording it sounds crappy. It can only sound as good as the source recording is. That said, I'm constantly changing the set of records I use to show off my system's virtures. I use a varying combo of rock, jazz & new age recordings. My audio system sounds great not only because of the recordings I play but moreso because I attended as much live, unamplified music as I could! Thus with a reference standard to use and a trained ear/brain, whenever I changed anything in my audio system I knew when I was moving closer to or further from the reference standard, period.

Don in the scheme of things here I believe you're about as dishonest a person as they come around here. Why? because you have no problem being disrespectful to me and others when you address us but, if you aren't addressed in a manner you believe is respectful you run to The Bored whining. A specific example of your disrespectful behavior is refering to myself & others who share my beliefs about the importance of using live, unamplified, music as a reference standard, as (my) kind of whining.

However yet if I were to address you as anything but Don or Mr Till ---{for example if your name was Tom and I called you Tommy}--- you'd go running to The Bored whining I'm disrespecting you! It amazes me how easily you can be disrespectful to me & others & then not only believe you should be addressed respectfully but, you actually demand respect of others to the point of whining to The Bored if you aren't addressed in the manner you desire. Don your behavior is two-faced & dishonest. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised though. Especially when I consider your nasty behavior has already gotten you banned from the critics forum.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

Nice response!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 22:43:03
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "Of course if you're one of those people who believes the prettier, more expensive audio component ALWAYS sounds better, than perhaps for you it's possible to convince yourself that an LED's color will effect a component's sound quality but, for me and anyone else who uses live, unamplified music as a reference standard it's a non-issue."

I never said such a thing though someone else might believe that more expensive equipment will sound better.

In fact in conversations here on AA you have clearly stated that you assume more expensive equipment should sound better. Are you going to deny this? Of course in my response to your comment I stated explicity that I didn't believe such a thing.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy of your original post - here right at the beginning you are guilty of an outright and intentional misrepresentation. That is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

And that's why I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your BS.

You may feel you are doing something as you propose yourself a follower of the live reference, with your trained ears and all, the truth of the matter is, without a rigid scientific methodology you really aren't doing anything some guy chosing a midfi system that sounds best with his Led Zeppelin records is doing. As you admit to this lack of preparedness and thoughfulness you expect us to believe your live listening experiences somehow distinquishes you as being different from the Led Zeppelin fan? Why in heavens name should anyone believe such a claim? Maybe heard something about live unamplified music and it made sense so now it becomes our ever lasting mantra even though we really got no clue to what it is we are actually talking about.

And further you say - "If it's a good recording it sounds good, if it's a great recording it sounds great, if it's a crappy recording it sounds crappy. It can only sound as good as the source recording is."
I know you believe this as you said it many times. If there ever was an OBJECTIVIST position I completely disagreed with it is that one. Sure a good recording sounds like a good recording and a bad recording sounds like a bad recording. However how good or bad a recording sounds has less to do with recording quality and more to do with what has been recorded.

In fact all you are saying is if a recording sounds good on my stereo it must be a good recording and if it sounds bad it must be a bad recordings. I find this to be a very INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST position as it is ignorant of the sound imparted by the system - ie. if it sounds bad it can't be the system it must be the recording.

As someone who can appreciate the color of an LED and understand it's influence on my listening session all I can say to you is that I find your comments and postitions as closed minded, as INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST, and as objectivist as the very objectivists you are attempting to impeach.

And BTW your denial on the influence of the LED color on a listening session is as closed minded and objectivist to me as is someone who believes all cables/interconnects sound the same.

Yes It Was :^), posted on October 14, 2009 at 14:04:08
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001
 Don,

In my previous post I asked you to:

1) Explain why a person who uses live, unamplified music as a reference standard requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone.
2) Explain what that rigorous scientific methodology is.
3) Explain how it should be carried out.

So until you defend your moronic OBJECTIVIST postion I will only respond to you with this same request! Once you answer that I respond to more of your OBJECTIVIST audio foolishness.

Of course I'm fairly sure you'll choose to respond to my request to defend your stated beliefs with the same nasty behavior that has already gotten you banned from the critics forum.

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

RE: Yes It Was :^), posted on October 15, 2009 at 11:25:57
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 "1) Explain why a person who uses live, unamplified music as a reference standard requires a more rigorous scientific methodology than does one based on measurement alone."

The "live reference" methodology, or the concept of an Absolute Sound, was proposed in order to allow serious and dedicated hifi purchasers an objective methodology to evaluate hifi performance without having to quantify measured results. The sound of live instruments in a venue is a fixed quantity that actually reflects what we want our system to do - measurements are also a fixed quantity but their definition, in terms of what we want our system to do is ambiguous.

The idea was that we could most easily familiarize ourself with the sound of accoustic instruments in a venue and thus use this knowledge to evaluate the performance of our audio equipment.

This on the surface sounds perfect! What more can we ask of our audio system. And for the most part I agree it is a perfect solution but in reality it's quite difficult to nearly impossible for the vast majority of us to expect reasonable results doing things this way.

Training our ears to recognize the sound of accoustical instruments is just the beginning and the easy part of this methodology.

In order to properly evaluate hifi performance this way not only do we need to know and recognize the sound of the instruments, we need to know and understand the venue in which they were recorded and we need to know and understand the recordings which we are using to evaluate our components performance. And even more important, if that's possible than the above, we need to determine a comprehensive set of reference recordings that actually exercises all aspects of our systems performance.

Failure to adhere to any of the above, regardless of one's impressions of the results they have achieved, will lead to a system whose colorations are most pleasant (regardless of how this is defined) and whose performance is somewhat indeterminate.

"2) Explain what that rigorous scientific methodology is."

Tom I'm not the one claiming to prescribe to the concepts of the Absolute Sound or to be using a "live reference". Early in my days as an audiophile I was intrigued by the concepts but soon (not soon enough) realized that I, and most other audiophiles, aren't devoted enough to make the committment required to use such concepts to successfully build an audio system.

3) Explain how it should be carried out.

Well Tom it has as much to do with being familiar with the sound of a recording as it does with the sound of live intruments. Without being intimately familiar with the recordings used in these kinds of component evaluations there is absolutely no way one can be assured that the system isn't compensating for defects in the recording or vice-versa. It's INTELLECTUALLY DISONEST for someone to deny this. And it's also INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to deny the importance of a comprehensive set of test recordings that exercises all aspects of system performance.

Again and I'm saying this to you over and over again - Unless one adheres to the requirments above, and more, to insure the veracity of all conclusions, one isn't doing anything more when using "live references" than a guy who is looking for equipment that makes his stereo make Led Zeppelin sound most like Led Zeppelin.

There should be no questions as to why the "live reference" is so much more difficult, and thus requires a more rigorous methodology, than simply taking measurements. Setup is the same but measurements are simply taken and the decision is made whether they are good enough. While the sound of accoustical instruments in a venue is fixed. We have to learn, listen, compare and then decide - there's so much more room for error, including psychological effects, with the "live reference" than with measurements.

And there should also be no question the the sound of live accoustical instruments isn't subjective - it's objective and as such those using "live references" are as much objectivists as those using measurements. A much more sensible approach than attempting to quantify measurements, but objective no doubt - and much more difficult to properly implement.

BTW - I rose to your challenge and answered your questions only to show that I am operating in good faith. I don't want another response from you. It's impossible to have a "conversation" with an INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST person and that's you in spades. And that's the point I made in my original posting and that's the point I'm making again in this response. And I'll make it again if you chose to continue on with your blather.
"conversation with intellectually dishonest people" - after reading your post,..., posted on October 13, 2009 at 12:04:20
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... I must conclude that it beats conversation with UNintellectually dishonest people any time.

Why not just measure the darn wires???!!!, posted on October 12, 2009 at 19:11:24
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 Your hypothetical debate between two straw men beautifully illustrates the futility of trying to objectify subjective experience. Expectation bias may influence sighted testing, and performance anxiety can sure as hell bias double blind testing. And there are a host of other variables, not least personal belief, which can influence what a person hears or thinks he hears at a particular time or place.

But there is nothing subjective about the electrical characteristics of a piece of wire: resistance, capacitance, and inductance can be precisely measured. With these measurements in hand, you can model their transfer function into the frequency response of any speaker. If there is an obvious alteration of the response, then the cable is doing something audible.
Damn tootin', posted on October 13, 2009 at 08:26:33
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 While RLC, especially at a single frequency is insufficient to produce an adequate model for this application, measuring, modeling, comparing, and forcing are the royal means to understanding and progress as they drive the scientific method loop. That's how we learn about things. I regard the DBT insanity and the "humans are mystically sensitive to nuances which are beyond measurement" way of thinking as silly red-herrings which just get us off track and feed bootless arguments.

However, it's a much more daunting task than one might suppose, but that doesn't mean that we can't do it and shouldn't try. If you choose to seriously pursue this, bear in mind that cables' impacts are strongly coupled to the particular system they are used in so you absolutely have to consider the environment and the design peccadillos of the gear to make much sense of it.

That the current PropHead approach is doomed to fruitlessness can be shown by the thousands of posts and nugatory progress. We've got plenty of electronic types here, I just wish we had some metallurgists and materials scientists. But even without them I bet we can further our ability to predict results from measurements just by considering them as black boxes. Fortunately we have a lot of data available on what works in general, some from our own experience and much from others both on CABLES and from examining the commercial cables that are widely found to be satisfactory. At worst it's a benign pursuit and keeps us off the streets, at best we can gain insights into both cables and into how to design I/O circuitry which is largely immune to them.

Rick

Damn tootin' Indeed!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 15:40:44
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Rick as usual I mostly agree with your posting. Unfortunately, as usual, you're the optimist. Me I think the nature of Stereo itself is far more a limitation than any deep unknown or untapped technical or scientific resource. Look two voltage levels is limitation enough but add to that an infinitely configurable playback environment how much farther can we expect to progess?

Color me the pessimest but even given some tremendous advance in amplifier or speaker technology what could one expect to achieve? For the most cost reduction is the area we have and can expect to see improvements. Maybe someone will work out something new on the recording side but why anyone would think new technology on the playback side is going to get us closer to some ideal live experience given nothing more than two voltage levels is really something worthy of serious consideration. I just don't see it and no one really is talking about it other than to say we've got great heroes and that I, based on many responses hear on AA, most certainly am boneheaded dolt for not believing.
RE: Damn tootin' Indeed!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 19:28:25
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 Well, I think you are right! If our systems are working well enough that they produce a reasonable facsimile to the original that we are happy with and satisfies us, there is probably very little more that can be done without adding additional, probably spatial, information. Even then it's value may be marginal for some folks, like me, due to the sorts of music we listen to and practical limitations in our homes. Even one or two channels can be sufficient to produce wonderful, thrilling sound although three can usually do it more reliably.

But quantity can only make up a little for quality from my experience and I'd rather have one really good channel than N annoying ones.

Which brings me to wire, an issue no matter how many channels we use. It's much discussed in these parts and I think the main reason is that most of us don't know just what makes it tick or the intimate details of how it interacts with our systems. It's a mysterious force to be reckoned with. Some others find it a bully handle for causing mischief, probably because it appears simple yet has effects difficult to quantify. Right now I'm more curious than anything else. If I happen to learn anything useful that would be fine too. It's just a hobby, some fish, some dink with stereos.

I don't get your reference to heros but you're too right about our recordings, I'd say they are already the limiting factor in my sound a good 80% of the time. That's why I'm excited about high-res downloads which when combined with good recording techniques and gear could dramatically change that ratio.

Rick

Would that we had such useful measures! It is like THD, useless! nt, posted on October 13, 2009 at 06:11:47
Norm
Audiophile

Posts: 14914
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

Why even bother?, posted on October 12, 2009 at 21:16:00
Don Till
Audiophile

Posts: 675
Location: Tempe
Joined: February 16, 2009
 Nice post but why even bother with the measurements?

Not that it matters but I can comfort my feeble little mind by believing that if something sounds different it will measure different - if we don't measure a difference we simply aren't measuring the right things or we aren't noting measureable differences with the resolution required to show the difference.

But why care about that at all? Well I don't. What's important to me is -

1.) That when I conclude that I hear a difference that there actually is a difference. I have noted differences where they were a function of test procedure or methodology and not differences between items being tested - I consider this a useless result. I have also noted differences, when there were none, based on my expectations or other external influences. I may or may not consider these differences worthy of additional expenditure.

2.) Whether the differences I have heard are actually real or imaginary (test methodology lapses don't get this far) I need to determine if these differences enhance my enjoyment of listening to music through my system.

Measurements mean nothing. How much pleasure I get from spinning my ever widening diversity of recordings means everything. How in the heck should I quantify measurements based on what means something to me? I have no clue but I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter one iota.

At best taking measurements might prove my original position - that if things sound different they must measure different. If not then again we just aren't measuring the right things. But, maybe not, and like I said I really don't care and I'm not sure why anyone would care.


RE: Why not just measure the darn wires???!!!, posted on October 12, 2009 at 19:26:30
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "With these measurements in hand, you can model their transfer function into the frequency response of any speaker."

One can always create models. But models are not the same as reality. It is an absolutely fatal error to conflate the two.

In any event, thetubeguy's post was not about wires. I should have though that was obvious, at least to anyone with enough intelligence to understand the difference between models and reality.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Great Observation Tony, posted on October 13, 2009 at 14:02:05
thetubeguy1954
Audiophile

Posts: 3149
Location: Orlando, Fla
Joined: January 7, 2001



Tony,

As much as it amazes me, from what I've read of the responses so far I believe you're the one of only two people who actually grasped what my post was about. I honestly thought that my subject heading would have given what the topic of discussion is away. Unfortunately I guess not that's not the case.

My imaginary dialogue between a subjectivist and an objectivist could have been about any type of audio component. The point I was making was:

How can a subjective person attempt to have a meaningful exchange of ideas & beliefs with an objective person who'll dishonestly profess to embrace unbiased, objective, truth-seeking methods of scientific research but, when discussing/debating with the subjectivist they reveal themselves as being biased, unobjective & practicing pseudoscientific because they're far more interested in proving their particular set audio beliefs are correct, than possibly discovering, whether they be subjective or objective, whose audio beliefs are really the scientifically correct ones.

PS: I just added Stealth Audio's newest and rather costly top-of-the-line Sakra IC to my audio system. I won't bother talking about their virtues at this time!

Thetubeguy1954

~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~

RE: Why not just measure the darn wires???!!!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 12:33:33
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 "One can always create models. But models are not the same as reality. It is an absolutely fatal error to conflate the two."

The map is not the territory. But it can be extremely useful when one is navigating the territory. Subjective impressions can tell you IF something sounds wrong in your system. Frequency response and distortion measurements can tell you WHY it sounds wrong, and allow you to undertake remedial measures.

"In any event, thetubeguy's post was not about wires."

No, it was a staged debate between two intellectually dishonest stereotypes. But the subject of the debate WAS wires.

RE: Why not just measure the darn wires???!!!, posted on October 13, 2009 at 13:14:33
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Intellectually honest followers of Prophead for the past year or two know the reasons why thetubeguy used stereotypes rather than monikers and posts. Those who missed the debate will be able to pick out the reasons from a careful study of the archives, but some interpolation may be required.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

So why bother? This forum is just a place to waste your time like "outside." nt, posted on October 12, 2009 at 16:07:57
Norm
Audiophile

Posts: 14914
Joined: September 6, 2000
 a

Nice to see you guys back at it, posted on October 14, 2009 at 10:52:44
LarryB
Reviewer

Posts: 523
Location: NYC
Joined: December 4, 2002
 Same sh@t, different day. Same outcome.

Larry

Page processed in 0.380 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]