In Reply to: Re: It does not work that way... posted by theaudiohobby on March 27, 2007 at 03:35:12:
>>There are 2 incontrovertible facts involved in my parable.
>
>Only the first statement satisfies that criterion.
In your opinion. I assure you that my dissatisfaction was real. I find
it amazing that you now claim to be a mind reader in order to be able
to wriggle out from the implications of my experience.
>>2) The solid-state amplifier did not satisfy me in long-term
>>listening, >despite all the non-audio factors working in its favor.
>
>Your comments do not take into account hidden or unconscious bias...
Nor do they take into account ESP or your claims to be able to
discern my state of mind a quarter century ago. Again: despite my
love for the Quad amplifier, despite the fact that it was very much
less expensive than the amplifier it replaced (meaning I made money
on the exchange), despite it being, small, cool-running, and despite
the hero-worship I felt (and still feel) for its designer, in the long
term, and without reference to other amplifiers, it proved extremely
unsatisfying in the task for which I had purchased it. That sir, is a
fact.
I suppose you will next suggest that I should have performed further
blind tests to "prove" that my dissatisfaction was illusory? Ecept
that I imagine that would have produced the same result as before, in
which case I would still be stuck with a sound that dissatisfied.
Only a fool or someone in the throes of religious zeal would regard
that as rational behavior, I respectfully suggest.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 03:55:56 03/27/07 (11)
- C'mon, John - E-Stat 07:16:27 03/27/07 (7)
- Re: C'mon, John - theaudiohobby 11:39:05 03/27/07 (5)
- I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - E-Stat 17:35:12 03/27/07 (4)
- Re: I didn't have any questions for Mr. Atkinson - theaudiohobby 18:59:11 03/27/07 (3)
- I would say facetious, not malicious. - robert young 15:51:36 03/29/07 (2)
- Thank you - E-Stat 16:21:49 03/29/07 (1)
- You're welcome. - robert young 18:54:40 03/29/07 (0)
- Re: C'mon, John - kerr 07:36:55 03/27/07 (0)
- Re: It does not work that way... - theaudiohobby 04:42:55 03/27/07 (2)
- Re: It does not work that way... - John Atkinson 13:14:34 03/27/07 (1)
- Re: It does not work that way... - Avocat 15:18:43 04/01/07 (0)