|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.215.206.130
In Reply to: RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... posted by Enophile on July 20, 2010 at 14:24:23
It seems they want more when they don't like the results
Follow Ups:
It's pretty basic in science. Why should anyone accept some anomalous result without replication?AS
"It seems they want more when they don't like the results"Sounds like many subjectivists--except they really don't want any real tests at all, let alone more tests.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/21/10
either you understand why it is cherry picking to only scrutinize tests that give positive results while giving all nulls a free pass or you don't understand it. The explination is clearly spelled out in my OP.
If you want to wave the science flag you sure can't make this argument which is a classic logical fallacy.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx
"Tu quoque
Literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."
If you want to wave the science flag you can't cherry pick nor can you accept others cherry picking.
At least the subjectivists who actually don't want tests aren't hypocritically waving the science flag.
"either you understand why it is cherry picking to only scrutinize tests that give positive results while giving all nulls a free pass or you don't understand it. The explination is clearly spelled out in my OP"
Actually, your OP is anything but clear.
Even as you state it here, it is simply a personal attack, whether correct or not. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the criticisms made of various tests are valid or not.
As well, if a DBT test was competently performed, it provides data, even if you don't like the statistical analysis or some of the conclusions drawn.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Actually, your OP is anything but clear."
I thought the article I cited on meta-analysis was very claer. I suggest you go back and read that article I cited on meta-analysis and then tell me what you did and did not understand. We can go from there.
"Even as you state it here, it is simply a personal attack, whether correct or not."
No Pat, my assertion of misuse of meta-analysis on the part of many objectivists is not a personal attack. it is a well argued critique of a pathology I see in many objectivists in audio and I supported it with some clear cut examples.
"It has absolutely nothing to do with whether the criticisms made of various tests are valid or not."
Red herring. My point was about the approach to meta-analysis of the individuals not the specific analysis of the specific tests being scrutinized in the two cited threads. Again, I suggest you read the article on meta-analysis I cited. If you don't understand the points raised in that article or how they directly apply as I am asserting they apply I'll try to explain it to you.
You tried to support your thesis by referring to internet discussions of a particular experiment. However, those discussions brought up rational criticisms of the way the experiment was done. Your examples are red herrings, since they do not seem to illustrate whatever point you want to make.
Moreover, you did not in fact analyze those discussions, any more than you supported your assertions about how some of those whom you call objectivists proceed.
It is possible you may be right about some objectivists, but you really have done nothing to show this. You just assert your belief on the matter.
If you wanted to discuss meta-analysis, then the article is a good starting point. You would have been better to stick with that rather than engage in unsupported attacks. However, as Tony Lauck has pointed out, the article on meta-analysis is somewhat flawed. For example, just picking out criteria in advance as to what studies to include is not sufficient, as one must know enough about the field to pick relevant criteria.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
That being meta-analysis. Nothing in your post addresses meta-analysis. review that and get back to me.
"Your examples are red herrings, since they do not seem to illustrate whatever point you want to make."
So you don't know what point I am trying to make yet you claim my examples don't illustrate this point that is unknown to you? I hope even you can see the irony in that.
"Moreover, you did not in fact analyze those discussions, any more than you supported your assertions about how some of those whom you call objectivists proceed."
Well gosh Pat, if you understood the article on meta-analysis you would understand that there was no reason to analyze those discussions. the mere fact that they can only be found with undesired positive results is the point that is so well described in the article on meta-analysis. Again I suggest you read that article and get back to me when you understand it. Here is the part that basically explains it all. "Again, it is important that you determine your criteria for weeding out flawed papers in advance. You might think that it would be a good idea to scrutinize each paper for specific methodological errors, rather than working from a check-list. However, there is a snag with that. It has been shown that people, including scientists, are much better at spotting methodological flaws in papers the results of which don't fit their preconceptions. This would result in unconscious cherry-picking if you looked for unique flaws in each paper." now if you really can't understand this very well written excerpt from a very well writen article on meta-analysis then...well it's just over your head. sorry.
You then pick something out of it and tell us that most of what was in your original post is irrelevant.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Anything to avoid dealing with my points eh?
I find it entertaining to be skeptical of the skeptics. The cited web page offers a number of good targets. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think objectivists can't wrap their heads around exagerrated claims made under sighted conditions that subsequently are rendered inaudible due to blind listening deafness.
A decent attempt at making a repeatable claim would be an awesome start for the delicate subjectivists who can hear whole new layers of detail so long as they know they have Valhalla cables hooked up, but can't tell it apart from Rat Shack magnetic wire when the chips are down.
As for the objectivists who demand instantaneous DBT - screw them, too. Take your time, look for subtle sonic cues at different listening points in a performance...enjoy...then see if those night and day differences are real! Subjectivists need to challenge themselves a little - I think much of where they spend time listening is "I'm so special land" and too many objectivists toss rocks over from "nobody can hear that-ville."
I'm going to frame this.
Did you read the OP or the threads I cited? No sighted tests involved in this discussion.
OCD objectivists, adamant subjectivists....I think in Hi Fi there is ample middle ground that remains unexplored, so your rant renminded me of that.
Sorry if you thought my post drifting.
A bit but no worries. I'm almost looking forward to seeing what bizarre tangent Pat will try to take this thread to
The last time I heard a night and day difference was when I replaced my Sony rack system with an "audiophile approved" one... which didn't cost that much more. That was in the late 1980's. Nothing I've auditioned since then was "night and day". I think your point is well taken. Too much rhapsodizing, not enough real testing. Under blind testing, even the biggest differences faded for me. They didn't disappear in many cases, but they were not as noticeable as when I auditioned sighted. Most of the time the diffs were not worth the additional $$ to me.
That said, I've heard systems that were considerably better than anything I've ever owned. Not night and day but maybe 6 a.m to 10:30 a.m? lol.
I agree.
I'm tired of 'scientists' wasting my tax dollars on their 'big bang' B/S.
Rick
nt
Could be...
I haven't been following this one as arguing about arguing leaves me cold but when I started on AA they were all the rage. JJ and others arguing about, about, who knows? Probably DBT's, subjective/objective, the weather in Malaysia...
Congratulations by the way, I guess you've gone as far right as a person can get! I think the John Birch electronically monitors for that so you will likely get a reward of some sort in the mail soon. Maybe a small statuette or a certificate suitable for framing.
Nothing else like being a marginal inmate at the Audiophile Asylum!
Rick
One can't replicate past events, such as Caesar crossing the Rubicon or the Big Bang, but one can re-examine the data available or try to replicate the experiments or do other experiments which bear on the issue.
For example, Banks and Krajicek were not satisfied with the design and set up of Stereophile's blind test of two amplifiers. So they administered a smaller scale but much better set up blind test with different speakers and were able to confirm that the two amplifiers did sound different in the tests. Given that one was a tube amplifier with a high output impedance and the other was a solid state amplifier with a low output impedance, this was hardly surprising.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
The infamous ABX DBTs of amplifiers from Stereo Review back in 1985? Clearly one of the mosty cited set of ABX DBTs in the history of the great debate. that test wrought a null between a SS amp and a a 50 watt OTL on a very difficult load. You don't think that was an "anomolous" result? Why no mention of it Pat? I think I actually cauht you doing the very thing I wrote about in the OP. You are cherry picking. That is ironic.
Now let's see if you can find any evidence that any of tyhe objectivists who like to scrutinize positive results of ABX DBTs because of alleged "anamolous" results have scrutinized that most famous of ABX DBTs due to the "anamolous" results. there is plenty to scrutinize in those tests by the way.
Knock yourself out Pat. I look forward to your obfuscation of my points. You have 14 more posts to go before you hit 20 on this thread.
I don't even have a copy of it.Also, I know that some amplifiers do indeed sound different from some other amplifiers. DBTs have shown some high fidelity amplifiers sound different when driving complex loads such as found in many speakers. That has not prevented a number of people from saying that others believe every amplifier sounds the same--it's a big straw man thrown around in controversy. Some throw that idiocy at me from time to time.
In the June 1991 issue, Stereo Review published an article by E. Brad Meyer called "The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are you loudspeakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?" A tube and a solid state amplifier were tested with two different speakers. One speaker offered a difficult load to the amplifier, one did not (the loads are not specified). With pink noise, the tests showed to a very high degree of probability that the differences between the two amplifiers were audible using either speaker.
With the music selections, the tests showed audible differences between the two amplifiers to a high degree of probability using the speaker with a difficult load. Using the speaker presenting the easier load, the tests results did not disprove the null hypothesis using those music selections, though it's always possible that with other music or other listeners the differences would have been shown to be audible. In any case, they were shown to be audible with pink noise.
Stereophile and Soundstage show the frequency responses of the amplifiers they measure into a standardized dummy speaker load. Some of the mainstream magazines did so, too. Quite a while ago, I emailed Doug Schneider of Soundstage and suggested that they include a graph of the load offered by the dummy speaker load used by BHK labs in amplifier tests. He agreed and the graph showing impedance vs. frequency and electrical phase vs. frequency is now shown at the following URL as part of the explanation of how they measure amplifiers:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_amplifiers.htm
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/22/10 07/22/10
at least you are consistant.
LOL
You don't even seem to know what "to cite" involves!
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
1. This citation is in the OP
"If we take the famous amplifier shootout reported in Stereo Review back in 1985 we find all kinds of problems in protocols, methodologies and statistical analysis. they were in short really bad tests. what I have yet to find with this particular highest of profile ABX DBTs is any of the same in depth analysis and criticisms of the protocols and statistical analysis from objectivists that we see in the two threads cited above in which tests with positive results have been reported. in fact I have yet to find *any* examples of any of these objectivists ever making such in depth analysis of protocols and statistical analysis against *any* ABX DBTs in audio that resulted in a null."
This is what the word citation means as I used it in the previous post.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cite
"to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent"
have fun finding a new tangent of obfusecation on this one Pat. ::snicker:;
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Is this what it has come to Pat? is this some sort of panic attack?
Where did it appear?
You appear to know practically nothing about it, and certainly do not have first hand knowledge of it.
Yes, I am playing with you. I'm sorry you don't seem to like it. If you had been nicer, I might have taken pity on you. But then, maybe you'll learn something.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
The wrong date and the lack of title and authors made it more difficult for me to find, but I located it last night.
Bruce Coppola would count as a (minor) objectivist who relies on that article and the conclusions drawn from it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
since upon return I can always count on finding you up to your usual pedantic posturing and boorish behavior.
Thanks for the good chuckle at your expense.
Hint: there is no article such as he identified it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
by being the guy who rests his arguments on technicalities.
Don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about regarding the Stereophile amp tests...
Thank you for your kind remark. You may well be correct. For example:RY
"Don't pretend you don't know what he's talking about regarding the Stereophile amp tests..."Who is talking about Stereophile blind amp tests? Not me or AS.
Well, maybe you just didn't follow the . . . uhhh . . . discussion. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you really meant to type Stereo Review.
See the importance of clearly identifying something, including an article, that one wants to talk about? It's pretty basic. I might help AS out if he asked nicely.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Edits: 07/24/10
you are up to 22 now and have hit some pretty amazing highs in obfuscation including the deliberate attempt to derail things over a misremembered date. BRAVO!!! you exceded my expectations. I'm done toying with you now that you passed my prediction. The rest is just icing.
You know, the ones mentioned in the OP and which you later said exceeded known audible thresholds shown on the ABX site? The information I asked you for?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/5/58746.html
Since you did not know who wrote the article, nor the title, and got the date wrong, that made it somewhat more difficult for me to find it. Once I did find it, it was clear that you did not have the article in front of you since you had the date wrong, and also did not have the contents right. Since you did not know who wrote the article or what the title was, it is no wonder you have never seen it criticized, so your attempted meta-analysis in your OP was so much hooey.
If you want a link the 1987 article in SR by Clark and Masters, I have found one and it is below. Read away to your heart's content. As I surmised, the program material was not as good for the purpose as it might have been--even Stereophile later discovered thick stuff like choral music made for a more sensitive test. I am surprised they did not use pink noise, too.
Oh, BTW, this means I have actually found an objectivist who relied too much on a superseded test, but so far, you have not, though you maintained you knew this. But really, you and JA should get over an old test done 23 years ago.
I cited a later article in SR by E. Brad Meyer in which he showed an audible differences between a tube amp and a SS amp driving two different speakers, though with one of the speakers, the difference was only shown to be audible on pink noise. You and JA really should get over that old superseded test.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
that there have not been any sonic improvements with amplification stages in the past twenty-five years. Do you ever get out and sample what is available?
rw
Totally unrelated to the discussion.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Nothing changes at all in a quarter of a century with respect to electronics.
rw
I am not sure where you get that--certainly not from me. There are a number of amps nowadays with very low S/N rations, very low distortion, and also a number that can drive very low impedance loads. I dare say there are many more available now than there were 25 years ago. Under what conditions these make an audible difference is another question.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Amplification stages have come a long way in the past twenty five years since Stereo Review tested the question of audibility. An SP-11 was a good preamp, but no match for a REF5. The same can be said for amplifiers.
Under what conditions these make an audible difference is another question.
That would be playing music. Without any of the built in crutches required by Clark's ABX testing.
rw
A back a few posts, you break in with some really off the wall statement about something you attribute to me with no justification.
"I am truly very sorry if you believe that there have not been any sonic improvements with amplification stages in the past twenty-five years."
Where on earth did you get that?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Did you actually read the test to which you linked? Do you really think there have been no sonic improvements at the high end over the past quarter century? If so, then I'm really sorry to hear that your exposure is limited. If not, then you will understand how stupid referring to such a dated test is.
rw
I caught Analog Scott out on two things.
One is an blind amplifier test published in Stereo Review which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987, which meant that he was discussing an article which he did not have in front of him. We both managed to find the text on line and he then admitted the point. I did not defend the results in any way, shape or form.
You are correct that the article in question has been superseded, but not for the reasons you suggest. In Stereo Review for June 1991, there is an article by E. Brad Meyer, "The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are your loudspeakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?" In this article, an unspecified solid state amp and an unspecified tube amp were tested driving two unspecified speakers, one with a difficult load an the other with an easier one. Some FR measurements were shown. The blind tests revealed that the differences between both amps was audible on pink noise with both speakers. With two music selections, however, the differences were shown to be audible with the amps driving the difficult speaker load, but with the easier load, they failed to prove the difference between the two speakers was audible. Obviously, the program material used can affect the outcome of such tests, and it is possible that with other music, maybe the differences between the two amps would show positive results when the amps drove the easier load. In any case, the pink noise test was sufficient to show there were audible differences between those two amps when driving those two speakers.
Since I have seen the results of E. Brad Meyer's test and other tests, I do not ordinarily question whether a tube amp sounds different from a solid state amp since it is reasonably probable they do. I think E. Brad Meyer deserves credit for publishing why many tube amplifiers do not sound the same as many SS amplifiers. It is simply their high output impedances. Audio magazine began showing the responses of tested amplifiers into a dummy or simulated speaker load, and Stereophile started to do so a few years later.
To get to the second thing. In his OP, AS mentioned a couple of threads on other sites which he thought illustrated his view that at least some of those he calls "objectivists" make a biased selection of published test results and don't criticize the ones that achieve null results. He may or may not have a minor point, but the threads for which he provided URLs contained quite rational criticisms of a positive DBT and a systematic survey of the literature was not needed. When I pointed this out, AS decided the threads he used to try to illustrate his thesis were irrelevant!
I remarked in a post that if the differences in the frequency responses of two products differed by more than the limits shown in the ABX Matching Criteria on the ABX site were exceeded, a blind test would not be needed to convince me the differences were audible under some conditions because a threshold has been previously established. However, AS jumped in and asserted that he had already shown two examples of this in his OP, so I simply asked him what those differences were. He has not replied. So I caught him out again.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> > One is an blind amplifier test published in Stereo Review which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987, which meant that he was discussing an article which he did not have in front of him.> >
When did I ever say I had it in front of me?
> > We both managed to find the text on line and he then admitted the point.> >
"admitted the point?" What point? There is no point there Pat. The article is real, It clearly describes highly flawed methodologies and clearly published very unlikely results. And we have no evidence of any objectivists scrutinizing this very high profile test and dismissing it.
> > I did not defend the results in any way, shape or form.> >
Who said you did? I suggest you reread my OP and see if you can figure out the problem here as it relates to meta-analysis commonly applied by so many objectivists when it comes to DBTs. With the 1985 Stereo Review article we have one of the highest profile examples of ABX DBTs in the history of the great debate. We also have a null which is a a dubious result given the presence of a 50 watt OTL.
The problem I am pointing to in the meta-analysis of so many objectivists is that I can find a multitude of examples of objectivists scrutinizing and then dismissing DBTs that wrought a positive result. One can not find the same criticism of said tests that wrought a null from objectivists. This pattern clearly fits the description i provided of poor meta-analysis. I simply cited the Stereo review article because it was so high profile that it should have had a slew of objectivists scrutinizing it and dismissing it had the objectivists been doing propper meta-analysis.
Where is the scrutiny of this test by the same objectivists who are scrutinizing DBTs that wrought positive results? Cherry picking......
OK now what was the other thing you "caught me out on?"
I'll just sit back and watch you obfuscate again.
Well, when you want to discuss an article, it behooves you to know who wrote it, what the title is, and what it said. You showed no sign of knowing anything of the sort. As for the flawed methodology and unlikely result, you haven't shown either one, though I happen to agree it could have been more sensitive. But since you did not know the particulars of the article, you could not possibly show that the 1987 SR amp test is high profile, and that it has not been criticized.
I cited a 1991 article in Stereo Review by E. Brad Meyer which showed audible differences existed between a SS amp and a tube amp, how audible depending on the speaker loads. Moreover, he showed why they sounded different.
The second thing? It is as I stated: You tried to illustrate that some objectivists, unnamed and unquantified, questioned the results of a positive DBT for no good reasons. However, your illustration fell flat because they did in fact come up with rational reasons why the test results should be questioned--in other words, it seems likely that the positive results simply reflected the test set up.
"To get to the second thing. In his OP, AS mentioned a couple of threads on other sites which he thought illustrated his view that at least some of those he calls "objectivists" make a biased selection of published test results and don't criticize the ones that achieve null results. He may or may not have a minor point, but the threads for which he provided URLs contained quite rational criticisms of a positive DBT and a systematic survey of the literature was not needed. When I pointed this out, AS decided the threads he used to try to illustrate his thesis were irrelevant!"
This reduces your allegation about cherry picking to mere assertion without evidence.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Well, when you want to discuss an article, it behooves you to know who wrote it, what the title is, and what it said."
Really one has to know the title? No Pat, all one needs to know in this case were the relevant facts. I'll list them for you.
1. It was ABX DBTs
2. The results as reported were a null
3. Given the presence of a 50 watt OTL amp with the load presented by the speakers used this is a very unlikely result.
4. The methodologies were a mess.
5. One can not find any scrutiny of this test anywhere online by any objectivists despite being one of the highest profile tests of it's kind.
I knew those 5 points from memory and rereading the article confirms those points were accurately remembered. And that is all I needed to make my point in the OP.
"You showed no sign of knowing anything of the sort."
Then you can't read the signs Pat.
" As for the flawed methodology and unlikely result, you haven't shown either one,"
Really? What aren't you getting about the problem with a 50 watt OTL not giving a positive result with the speakers used?
> > though I happen to agree it could have been more sensitive.> >
Clearly if it missed the obvious differences one would hear with a 50 watt Futterman and a cheap SS amp from the 80s.
" But since you did not know the particulars of the article, you could not possibly show that the 1987 SR amp test is high profile, and that it has not been criticized."
That is some pretty piss poor logic there Pat. again I would point you to the five key point above. they are all that matter in this case.
"I cited a 1991 article in Stereo Review by E. Brad Meyer which showed audible differences existed between a SS amp and a tube amp, how audible depending on the speaker loads. Moreover, he showed why they sounded different."
And this does what other than support my assertion that the results of the 1987 ABX DBTs wrought unlikely results?
> > The second thing? It is as I stated: You tried to illustrate that some objectivists, unnamed and unquantified, questioned the results of a positive DBT for no good reasons.> >
No I did not try to do that Pat. Again I suggest you read the article I cited on meta-analysis since this explains my actual point rather than the one you seem to be imagining here. I never commented on *the content* of these two threads that scrutinized the ABX DBTs that wrought positive results.
You maintain a number of things about the 1987 test but have not established any of them. You haven't shown why we would expect the Futterman amp to sound different--though from what I have seen somewhere, it should sound different under some common circumtstances.
Also, we have only your word that is a high profile article.
META-ANALYSIS?
Since I have shown that Stereo Review published an article in 1991 by E. Brad Meyer showing that a tube and a SS amplifier were audibly different with a speaker load. I should also point out that Stereophile did a very poorly set up mass blind test between a tube and a SS amplifier with barely positive results which readers showed were somewhat ambiguous, but Banks and Krajicek ran a smaller but much better set up blind test using the same two amplifiers and achieved a much less ambiguous positive result. Since the results reported in the 1987 SR article have been superseded, one wonders why you think it is so important. You give no reason whatever why subsequent testers would want to reexamine that old article except for historical purposes.
METHODOLOGY
You complain that:
"4. The methodologies were a mess."
But you do nothing to establish that. The results could have simply statistical fluke for all you have told us.
Since you maintain that "the methodologies were a mess," you should be able to tell us what they should have done better, but you aren't saying. Until you do, your complaints about the methodologies are simply your unsupported opinion.
-Why do you think the result of part of the test comparing the tube amp to the SS amps achieved a null result?
-What should the testers have done to make the test more sensitive?
I'm only trying to teach you something about how to support your positions.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
When you have a counter argument to any of my points let me know.
And that's what I have shown. If you want to make your points, it's up to you to argue for them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
and that is what I have shown. And these personal attacks prove you have no argument that i have no argument.
Score one for the argument that "This Will Never Be Resolved". ;)
i just wonder if he got the jokes.
Is there some form of measurement for the jokes? Has it been determined that the jokes are "get-able"? Evidence required. ;)
That made me laugh at 5 in the morning. But it was under sighted conditions so I don't know if I really laughed or imagined it
I keep wondering if people in South Central L.A take the time to DBT gunfire or if they just take cover.
There is an end. One can invoke the Kleene Star operator.
For more on this subject read the following:
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...wishing for 10 beers and then all non-biased thought went straight out the window. :)
Thanks - this was quite good. lol
Godel Escher Bach is one of my favorite books, but it requires a lot of determination to make it all the way through, especially if you follow all of the serious parts in detail and work out the puzzles.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
...which he kept saying was published in 1985. I quickly found out that it was published in 1987
You really got him there.
...a blind test would not be needed to convince me the differences were audible under some conditions because a threshold has been previously established.
Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot.
rw
and he STILL doesn't get it.
Pat has brought the joy back to Propheads for me.
I am glad that you enjoy the simple pleasures. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
since having to put the system into storage while my wife and I look for a home in DC, I've had to learn to enjoy the absurdities of the asylum just a little bit more...
you rely on typos to make a point??
You have fallen so far, in such a short time. I hope you don't even try to communicate with friends. Part of the social contract that underlies general social conventions is an ability to look past minor and/or irrelevant failings in order to participate.
Please Pat, I followed the conversation all along (yes, I can read, even when you can't see or know that I am following along. Cool thing about the 'net, eh?). What I have noticed (and I notice this a lot with you) is that you have managed to push the conversation so far away from its intended point(s) that it is just another episode of The Pat Show: Teflon Debater.
And I blame you for causing me to blow coffee out of my nose this morning.
The intended point? GMAB.
1. In the OP, AS asserted that some objectivists relied on articles without seeing if they could be criticized. He asserted some did but AS offered no evidence. He gave a couple of examples, which I showed did not establish his point, since the threads included quite rational criticisms of a DBT run at McGill U.
2. AS showed the URL of an article on meta-analysis, one that is a sort of a good beginning but which has some severe limitations as pointed out by Tony Lauck. AS tried to deny he had any other purpose, in effect denying no. 1 and most of his OP. But it is clear a main purpose was to attack (some) objectivists.
Of course, AS also kept talking about "undesired" results of DBTs, which is the fallacy of poisoning the well, rather than unexpected results. Meanwhile, he persisted in making unjustified and irrelevant personal attacks on me.
So, in fact, I systematically analyzed his OP. Moreover, I did, in fact, find an objectivist who did rely on the superseded article. AS did not, I did.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
especially about this one:
"Meanwhile, he persisted in making unjustified and irrelevant personal attacks on me."
It's you against the world Pat. Don't you ever forget it.
"It's you against the world Pat. Don't you ever forget it. "
You, AS, E-stat, and carcass93 are hardly "the world!" GMAB
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
It's a world of people discussing differences in sound of the preamps and amplifiers on Amp and Pre asylum. Take a note - differences, not whether differences exist.
It's a world of people discussing differences in sound of transports and DACs in Digital, cables in Cables, computer settings in PC Audio - and so on, and so forth. In general, it's a world of audiophiles, who strive for best sound possible, discussing audiophile matters, and chuckling at few lost anti-audiophiles preaching stagnant mediocrity.
In a forum that's supposed to be audiophile, no less.
It's also nice to be able to recognize them.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> It's also nice to be able to recognize them. <
Definitely! But what's preferable to illusions is reality, particularly the reality that I'm told has to be illusion. It's a good way to confirm that we don't already know everything there is to know.
kind of pathetic.
Have you ever heard the expression (and its many variations) "its us against the world?" Because once again you missed the point of the barb.
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
:)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: