In Reply to: Then what? posted by E-Stat on May 13, 2005 at 04:43:16:
"effectively there are no audible differences"Then, you turn around and backpedal, and quote Arny as restricting this to "good amps," which means logically that only "some" amps sound the same (even so, that is still only a statement of the null hypothesis). That's a restriction.
Now, you have the gall to say,
"Arny stated no restrictions in his statement."
GMAB
You're the same guy who takes a statement from a review about car audio and wants to generalize it to include home audio as well.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/critics/messages/8759.html
You would think that proper methodology would be to consider the statement restricted to car audio that Nousaine had heard. That's what the context would indicate.
Now, if you think I am being hard on you, just keep in mind that it is guys like you who insist that we state everything with strict logical coherency, dot every i and cross every t, while they think nothing of logical howlers and factual errors from the subjectivist side. So many don't like the taste of their own medicine . . . .
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Then what? - Pat D 09:32:09 05/13/05 (9)
- You're a trip, Pat :) - E-Stat 09:54:24 05/13/05 (0)
- Re: Then what? - bjh 09:41:19 05/13/05 (7)
- Re: Then what? - Pat D 15:02:40 05/13/05 (6)
- Re: Then what? - bjh 16:25:39 05/13/05 (5)
- More bad logic. - Pat D 21:08:14 05/13/05 (4)
- You continue to miss my point - E-Stat 04:43:42 05/14/05 (3)
- How many times are you planning to repeat your entirely obvious point ? - bjh 05:42:36 05/14/05 (1)
- You're right - E-Stat 06:38:28 05/14/05 (0)
- You have a point? - Pat D 05:34:10 05/14/05 (0)