Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

The Get Off Your Lazy Behind & Find It For Yourself!

Posted by thetubeguy1954 (A) on February 28, 2007 at 13:37:06

In Reply to: Who's talking about world views? We just want good evidence you can hear what you say you do. posted by Pat D on February 26, 2007 at 20:37:52:

(TG1954) "Pat D has previously admitted he does NOT use ABX or DBT's to select his personal components."

(Pat D)"Is there some reason I should? If so, provide the reason. If not, why do you use the inappropriate term, "admitted," when the appropriate term would simply be "said"?

(TG1954) Pat D-Cake please stop being so darn sensitive and taking everything so personally. When you do that it causes you to be looking for ulterior motives in other peoples words that don't exist. Then because you believe so desperately there's an ulterior motive, you find one that doesn't exist --like you did in this post!

For Example: I was simply responding to the question Do you use an ABX box to audition all of your potential audio purchases? Analog Scott asked you. With what I know to be the truth, i.e. you, Pat D-Cake admitted that you do NOT use an ABX box to audition your components, period! However being as senstive as you are, you took offense and commented that my use of the word ADMITTED was an inappropriate term. In your mind it was more appropriate to use said, instead of admitted. Perhaps you don't realize a synonym of admit is: ACKNOWLEDGE and acknowledge only means (according to Merriam-Webster)to disclose knowledge of or agreement with. So I'm afraid admitted was completely appropriate and you are just too darn sensitive.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now as we move on we find old thin skin taking offense yet once again to my statement that "Those (ABX) devices are reserved only for people who don't agree with his audio world-view!"

To which Pat D-Cake protests this is a deliberate falsehood. Ok then Pat D-Cake, prove it's a falsehood and show me one time where you ever asked a fellow objectivist, which are those who share your audio world-view, to submit to an ABX/DBT. I'll bet you cannot! In fact I'll wager EVERYTIME you've asked someone to submit to an ABX/DBT it was a subjectivist who doesn't share your audio world-view, which is precisely what I said! IMHO the deliberate falsehood was your denying the validity of my statement, but that hardly surprises me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To my comment of "I've never seen an objectivist suggest another objectivist take a DBT."

Pat D-Cake responds incorrectly that this is a totally tendentious and irrelevant remark.

First and foremost Pat D-Cake you're 100% wrong. My comment isn't irrelevant or biased. It's simply the truth. Please show me anywhere where one objectivist challenges another objectivist to submit to a ABX/DBT. Fact is it's you and your fellow lunatic fringe objectivists that are guilty of the despicable tendentious behavior of only demanding ABX/DBTs from subjectivists!

But wait! I can already hear the roar of protests building. They join together as one, as the lunatic fringe objectivists frantically proclaim... but we're ONLY asking that those who claim to hear differences prove they can actually hear these differences. In their typical lunatic-fringe objectivist fashion they say in unison, if someone thinks or believes they hear a difference", they should NOT say that "there is a difference" unless they're PREPARED TO PROVE IT !! But Pat D-Cake my response to that drivel is doesn't everyone who purchases a component believe they hear a difference? If not why do you sit and listen to different audio components BEFORE making a purchase? If not, why doesn't everyone buy the cheapest solidstate amp with as much power as possible? Pat D-Cake, you I and everyone else bought what we bought because we believed we heard a difference, no? I know and readily admit (OMG should I use the word say, instead of admit?) I bought what I bought because I "think I hear a difference" etc. I'm sure most everyone here bought what they did because they "think you hear a difference." Now if we take this to the simple and logical conclusion, then if you or I or anyone else thinks they heard a difference, then most likely we believe there is a difference too!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(TG1954) stated: "I love Pat D's and the typical objectivist POV, don't you? In a nutshell the typical objectivist here believes in POV that cannot be proven true. Thus they sit on their behinds insisting they are correct (all the while knowing their POV is unproveable) and demand subjectivists do all their work for them and prove the subjectivist POV is correct. You got to love these objectivist for their laziness."

To which Pat D-Cake responded: "You're the one talking of something so grand and vague as a "POV," and even bring up "audio world-view."

(TG1954) Boy Pat D-Cake I have to admit you're a miracle of modern medicine with your incredible abilities at observing the obvious aren't you? Yes I did indeed bring up POV. I don't know that it's either grand or vague. Your audio POV or audio world-view is pretty much lunatic fringe objectivist in it's nature, while mine is fairly standard subjectivist in nature. If that's vague to you perhaps you should familiarize yoursel with what these two opposing views in audio are. If it's a grand thing to you as well, then so be it!

However you're hardly "only" asking for proof of doubtful claims, which you state is a much more modest undertaking. Unike other objectivists of character like Dr Linkwitz, you won't accept the possibility that someone might be hearing something you cannot and still may not after it's been pointed out to you. Rather than accept that possibility you start demanding proof these others hear what they hear, you question their integrity and start calling it "doubtful claims." Then you make it more personal by applying an example to me. You mistakenly state: "For example, you can either establish that you can hear the differences between various speaker cables and interconnects or fail to establish you can."

The reality is I can not only choose to prove my claims, but unlike your mistaken belief that I can either establish or fail to establish whether or not I can detect differences in wires. I have a third and much more appealing option when it comes to dealing with lunatic-fringe objectivists of questionable character like yourself. I can outright refuse to jump through hoops for you and tell you "IF" you really want proof, get off your lazy behind and get it for yourself!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now Pat D-Cake you can continue to smugly proclaim it is legitimate to point out I have not proven to your satisfaction that I can actually hear all the things I claim I can hear. To which I'd reply, who cares what you think about my hearing abilities, I know I don't! At one time I would have liked to have shown you and provide the proof you asked for. Back then I quite nicely offered to prove it to you personally. You however chose to decline my offers, so move on and admit the truth is actually that you did not avail yourself of the opportunity to see if I could or couldn't hear what I state I can hear. You have no proof because you didn't wish to have it, period.

Now until you decide to purchase you audio components sans listening to them first, take your ABX/DBTs and espouse their virtues somewhere else to someone else who doesn't know how questionable they really are. The reality of DBTs is this....

1) For any test to mean anything, the test rig must be qualified as able to to test what it's intended to be tested.

2) It must be shown as able to consistently and reliably resolve the relevant data, so false positives and failures due to insufficient resolving ability are kept to a minimum.

3) Not once has any proponent of DBTs been able to provide detailed, documented proof that these beliefs are truly scientifically supported. They make claims of the proof DBTs have provided over the years with a great fanfare, which in turn places the burden on them to provide prove of these claims.

4) Not once has any proponent of DBTs provided peer reviewed published studies that prove their assertions are correct. Unfortunately it appears that after years of the Objectivist/Subjectivist debate going back and forth they cannot provide the proof they always claim exists.

Thus in the end we see, in light of the lack of such proof from those who espouse the impeccable virtues of ABX/DBT and make extragavant claims about it in the name of science, are sadly revealed as being practicers of voodooscience or psuedoscience. In the end these people are only stating their subjective opinions wrapped in scientific terms in an attempt fool the unknowing amongst us into believing they are actually being scientific. When what they're doings is actually no different than reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup!

Thetubeguy1954

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Analog Engineering Associates

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---