Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

One the question will you "... have the decency to STFU and accept your own statement?"

Posted by bjh on April 27, 2006 at 08:20:10:
Answer: Of course not!
What's obvious is that many of the items JA mentions would be considered subtle changes by many an audiophile. For example the orientation of a cables' connected (at only one end) shield, i.e. if the connected shield is grounded at the source vs. destination side. Personally I would have thought that even in the general case such would be difficult to detect even in a non-controlled blind conditions setting.
But this only shows that blind tests *can* be utilized to detect such differences. That doesn't touch upon the issue of how practical such tests are, nor whether they have much interest to audiophiles in general.
Both topics have been discussed extensively here and hence there is no need to repeat. To do, in your case, would be an exercise in futility par excellence, specifically because you have demonstrated again and again that you are perfectly opaque to argument and even facts.
It seems to me that the objectivist method in cases such as JA's testimonial is to discredit the claims, witness the Jon Risch case. This is because the *only* results worth consideration are those that fit their narrative. The rest is a complete waste of time, no less so that attempting to reason with any type of fundamentalist zealot.
Hmmmm ...? Reflecting upon which I'm afraid I have to admit to no small embarrassment, but perhaps with effort I might prove not to be a lost cause, thus ... Goodbye Pat.