|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.73.61.46
In Reply to: Dr Linkwitz An Objectivist of Character Admits The Truth posted by thetubeguy1954 on February 23, 2007 at 08:49:11:
Looks like I've planted just enough of a seed in your head, to now you are curious as to what a high performance loudspeaker system really sounds like. Obviously the doubts about those Aliantes are starting to surface, which is good, since you are very seriously constraining you listening pleasure by having those little boxes in your room instead of a decent set of speakers.
Next thing you know you will be looking at non-Nutra Sweetener amplifiers. All part of the recovery process. Good job!
Now rather than go into the cherry picked line in that vast website that you quoted, I'll just link you to what he is referring to. Clearly he decided that the very subtle change in sound that his friend and he were both hearing deserved investigation in the real world (the opposite of the subjectivist fantasy land where nothing is measurable, except by ear). To show that it was not merely delusion, see the link.
Mow you really must read the entire site even though you will not comprehend it, so carry on. Here is a little short cut where he talks about you in particular:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm#HSL - It is common practice in promoting audio products to tell a customer what to pay attention to in what he is going to hear, then to follow that with a demonstration, and afterwards to tell him again what he heard. It is the same process, whether it is a manufacturer's representative speaking with a store sales person, or the sales person talking to a prospective buyer. It is almost impossible for the target person not to hear, what has been suggested they will hear.
The power of suggestion has been used to perform major surgery without anesthesia, where the patient experiences no pain. It has been shown with CAT scans of the brain that in such cases an information disconnect occurs between the region that responds to pain, and the region of the brain that gives the patient the perception of pain. Thus, the normal perception process has been altered through the verbal, non-physical preparation that the patient received beforehand.
The influence of suggestion, especially when frequently repeated, should not be underestimated in the field of hearing. Many listeners have not acquired an auditory reference that is based on un-amplified sounds and are thus easily misled in matters of accuracy. Double-blind and ABX product comparison tests are frowned upon in some audio circles, though they remove any influence of suggestion, self or other generated.
I have no problem, if people enjoy their music more, because it has passed through a certain interconnect, has been transformer balanced, amplified without feedback, processed through a reissued WW2 transmitter tube and sent to their speakers on litz wires of specific arrangement and purity, except that the money for these suggestions could have been spent on better speakers, for real improvements in accuracy of dynamic range and resolution. After all, the loudspeakers are by far the weakest link in the chain of components that are needed for sound reproduction
Let me repeat what he is saying to you TG54, "except that the money for these SUGGESTIONS could have been spent on better speakers, for real improvements in accuracy of dynamic range and resolution."
BTW, I encourage you to keep reading more non-fiction, an excellent start on the road to recovery. Try reading up on the SS amps he uses too.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Follow Ups:
Hey AJ,I am just looking at all this logically and not interested in the pissing matches, and especially name calling that goes on here.
Now you did read the web site. You were impressed enough to build the speakers. Or to put it another way, SL "suggested" to you what you would hear. But yet you have now decided to make a change. Why? Did the suggestion wear off? Is it possible your ears won out over the "suggestion"? Were you seduced by another suggestion? Is it possible you learned long ago that the only way to know for sure is to build it and listen and live with it for a time?
R57 - I am just looking at all this logicallyExcellent, thereby I will respond to you as such. You start at a point with no history, so let me fill the gap with an extremely abbreviated version, so that my answer can be viewed in context (unlike TG54's cherry picked ramblings). I've owned lots of speakers, planars, boxes, boxes w/ horns, etc. Each had their strengths and weaknesses. I liked the openness and clarity of the boxless planars. I liked the dynamics and power of the dynamic driver boxes, the effortlessness of horns etc, etc.
Needless to say there were things that I didn't like about each, which have been discuss Ad infinitum by speaker owners all seeking better sound. I started building my own in college. Drifted away from planars and focused more on active bipolars with adjustable rear radiation (power shaping). Then I started surfing the internet (latecomer, mid to late 90's).
Didn't really get into the speaker building/DIY audio sites till maybe 4 yrs ago (I know, silly me). Stumbled across Linkwitz's site.
Immediately caught my interest. Found out that a friend had bought a set of Orions. Went and listened. Heard the "type" of sound that I had been seeking. Clarity. Openess (like an electrostat). Dynamics (cone drivers). Bass naturalness unheard of in monopole box speakers. Compact overall size that would suit my loft (16' deep room). Output limitations would be more than adequate for my loft (single wall between me and neighbors). Now hit the FF button.R57 - Now you did read the web site.
Yes.
R57 - You were impressed enough to build the speakers.
I was impressed enough to use his platform to build my own speakers, which are clearly not Orions, but most certainly related to and inspired by them.
R57 - Or to put it another way, SL "suggested" to you what you would hear.
I read far more about the design principles, than how it sounded subjectively, although a lot has been added to the site recently mentioning the "sound". Things like the isolation mounting that TG54 has pounced on were added *after* I had built mine. Ironically, I had already incorporated isolation mounting in my design because of necessity (plexiglass baffle). It's not like I had never heard a boxless speaker or a dynamic driver before, but I suppose you can draw whatever conclusions you wish. I tend to differentiate between suggestions backed by measuremnents or found in my physics books than suggestions backed by 2 prayers, one voodoo spell and three jars of pixie dust. Don't you?
R57 - But yet you have now decided to make a change. Why?
I thought I had made it clear to you previously that I had moved? Larger room. Further from neighbors. Dynamic limitations and max SPL ceiling has been largely lifted (within reason. Danleys 130+ db capacity would probably get me thrown out of the neighborhood)
R57 - Did the suggestion wear off? Is it possible your ears won out over the "suggestion"?
What suggestion?R57 - Were you seduced by another suggestion?
I was seduced by a different listening environment.
R57 - Is it possible you learned long ago that the only way to know for sure is to build it and listen and live with it for a time?
Sure. But I also learned long ago that I don't actually have to drive a Yugo to know its accelerates slower that a Ferrari (that measures quicker) and I don't have to first fly in an airplane to believe in aerodynamics and I don't have to attend a Voodoo ritual in person to know that magic spells don't work and .....cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"I don't actually have to drive a Yugo to know its accelerates slower that a Ferrari"Amen brother!
So what's the new speaker design going to be? Can you elaborate on the strengths/weakness of the orion design? In particular, do you think open baffle bass (and/or midrange) is worth perusing?
R57 - So what's the new speaker design going to be?More of the same. With the emphasis on more :-).
R57 - Can you elaborate on the strengths/weakness of the orion design?
Reduced speaker signature. Since we are listening to a recording trying to emulate real music, the signature of the reproduction system must be minimized (or at least, that is the goal here). Slightly easier to forget that you are listening to speakers.
Weakness is output - by design. A trade-off of the small form factor.
See the Beethoven when these restrictions are eased somewhat http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/328/
(BTW, his gush at the end about it "remains the single most impressive audio component I've yet encountered" was quite obviously before the advent of TG54's Mastersound Ref 845A)R57 - In particular, do you think open baffle bass (and/or midrange) is worth perusing?
That is a 15 page answer I'm not going to type (I'm a terrible typer). Short answer: maybe. If the tree fits the design of the forest, then yes. If not, no. No black and whites here. Did you check out the Geithain or Gradient sites, that I mentioned?
I found them worth pursuing within the paradigm of my design, which always includes the room.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
I personally think that open back mids are very well worth pursuing.
This is purely subjective, but I just find them more open and natural sounding than I have ever been able to achieve with boxed mids.I cannot see me building anything in future that does not use open back mids.
I can't talk about Dipole bass because I don't have the fund or know-how to do the EQ to do them properly.
But I can tell you that I have now done 4 or 5 different speakers with open baffle mids, and have come to the conclusion it is very unlikely I will build boxed mids ever again. A local fellow DIY loony also made a pair after hearing mine, and now says he doesn't see the need to build anything else.In other words, my thoughts are that if you haven't tried open back mids, you really owe it to yourself to at least find some and have a listen.
I haven't gotten around to doing the woofers yet. I am still thinking about what drivers to buy. I use a compression driver and waveguide for treble. I like what I hear so far. But I think AJ has more experience and would like to hear what he feels are the strengths/weakness of his speaker with open baffle bass and mid.
AJ, SL, John K approach things a bit differently from me. IIRC, they all started with the premise of dipole bass units using sub drivers, this limits the low x-o point to around 100Hz, meaning that you need big drivers in the MTM section (8" usually) so the drivers can take the EQ needed to get down to meet the bass unit. This in turn leads to using a very low, steep upper x-o point (usually around 1500Hz)
I actually worked with the MTM section first using smaller drivers, the low cut-off ended around 250-300Hz, so I had to use a normal (old style) bass driver in a vented cab to be capable of being smooth up to meet the mids.
should read"Double-blind and ABX product comparison tests are frowned upon in some audio circles, "BECAUSE" they remove any influence of suggestion, self or other generated."
So, why are they frowned up in some audio circles--by many here, for example--if not because they remove bias?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
nt
Hey Analog,Pat D has previously admitted he does NOT use ABX or DBT's to select his personal components. Those devices are reserved only for people who don't agree with his audio world-view! I've never seen an objectivist suggest another objectivist take a DBT.
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.
"Pat D has previously admitted he does NOT use ABX or DBT's to select his personal components."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"?
"Those devices are reserved only for people who don't agree with his audio world-view!"
A deliberate falsehood.
"I've never seen an objectivist suggest another objectivist take a DBT."
A totally tendentious and irrelevant remark.
"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."
You're the one talking of something so grand and vague as a "POV," and even bring up "audio world-view." Actually, I only ask for proof of doubtful claims, a much more modest undertaking. For example, you can either establish that you can hear the differences between various speaker cables and interconnects or fail to establish you can. There are methods for establishing what you can hear as you and Analog Scott both seem to know to some degree. If you don't want to use them, fine, but then it is legitimate to point out you have not proved you can actually hear some of the things you have claimed you can hear.
Thus, if someone claims they can hear the difference between a CD 'treated' with an Intelligent Chip and an identical CD not so treated, then we simply require good evidence before we will accept such a claim.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
(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!
You seem to find it terribly difficult to say that you think you can hear differences between interconnects, speaker cables and so on, but you haven't proved it.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
This is just another classic Pat D-Cake Audio Politican post. You started by saying I used an "inappropriate term" yet when I showed you admitted was appropriate you neither admit it was or dispute it like you originally did. So proving to you, you were wrong on that count was about 25% of the post. However you now want to totally ignore this part of the post because you were proved incorrect. Thus in your typical mis-direction tatics you act as if whether or not I can hear differences is what we were discussing, when the reality is we were talking about your lack of use of ABX/DBTs when purchasing audio components. However it's quite typical of you to mis-direct and then run and hide when proven incorrect.Next I addressed your false comment that I was stating a deliberate falsehood, when I said (ABX) devices are reserved only for people who don't agree with (YOUR) audio world-view! Then I further stated I've never seen an objectivist suggest another objectivist take a DBT, to which you commented you thought that was totally tendentious and irrelevant remark. Yet like with the topic above you totally ignore that part of the post and mis-direct once agin by pretending my hearing abilities was the main topic of discussion, which you know it wasn't!
You also totally ignore that I said 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.
This is a typical, non-information, mis-direction Pat D-Cake post. You want to take a post that was about whether or not YOU, Pat D-Cake used ABX or DBT's to select your personal components and twist it into a post supposedly about whether or not I can hear differences in wires. As I stated before, 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.
In addition until you decide to purchase your audio components sans listening to them first, you can take your ABX/DBTs and their virtues you espouse somewhere else to someone else who doesn't know how questionable they really are. So Pat D-Cake until you personally can...
1) Prove the ABX/DBT you propose is qualified as able to to test what it's intended to be tested.
2) Prove the ABX/DBT you propose is 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) Provide detailed, documented proof that these beliefs are truly scientifically supported. You make claims of the proof DBTs have provided over the years with a great fanfare, which in turn places the burden on you to provide prove of these claims.
4) Provide a peer reviewed published studies that prove your assertions are correct. Unfortunately it appears that after years of the Objectivist/Subjectivist debate going back and forth you cannot provide the proof they always claim exists.
Until you can satisfy 1-4 above don't waste your breath and my time talking about your Voodooscience ABX box. For in light of the lack of such proof I've asked for from you who espouse the impeccable virtues of ABX/DBT and make extragavant claims about it in the name of science. I'm afraid you've sadly revealed as being practicer of voodooscience or psuedoscience. In the end you're only stating your subjective opinions wrapped in scientific terms in an attempt fool the unknowing amongst us into believing they are actually being scientific. When what you're doings is actually no different than reading tea leaves in the bottom of a cup!
Play your mind games somewhere else, provide proof or shut up. The choice is yours.
Thetubeguy1954
Now, that still stands whether you put up a bunch of ill-thought out requirements for DBTs or not. Even were your criticisms valid, you still haven't proved you can hear the differences between various speaker cables and interconnects. Why not just admit it?You also seem to want to talk about me, points of style, make ill-informed remarks about synonyms, and so on, none of which have anything to do with audio.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
> Even were your criticisms valid, you still haven't proved you can hear the differences between various speaker cables and interconnects. Why not just admit it? <I'll admit it. I also haven't proven that I can taste the difference between apples and oranges, that I can see the difference between night and day or that I can smell the difference between a rose garden and a manure garden.
I don't need "proof" - I just need to hear the differences in cables with my own ears. You need proof. As Tubeguy suggests, you should go look for it yourself since objectivists seem to be the only living creatures that require proof of their own senses. The rest of the world is not responsible for your need for proof.
Pat D-Cake,You're definitely the master of audio politics. Your mastery of mis-direction and twisting of the truth is something that would make lying Bill Clinton jealous. As you well know the truth is this topic was NEVER about me or my abilities to hear differences in wires or can't you remember that far back? The topic was about YOU ---does or doesn't Pat D-Cake use ABX/DBT's to select his personal audio components? I answered Analog Scott's question with this statement: "Pat D has previously admitted he does NOT use ABX or DBT's to select his personal components." I also added my opinion "Those devices are reserved only for people who don't agree with his audio world-view!"
Unfortunately like always you took this all very personally and got defensive. Then in the typical Pat D-Cake, master audio politican way to twisted that topic through mis-direction into being about me and my ability, which you sadly lack, to hear differences in wires. If you don't believe I can hear these differences then get off your lazy behind and prove differently. Personally I won't hold my breath, because you'll take the lazy man's way out like you always do...
Like I've said before, 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 objectivists for their laziness.
Perhaps you guys really do want to know the truth, you just want everyone else to do the work for you. Sorry, but I don't jump through hoops for you Pat D-Cake. From now on you'll have to find out what the truth is for yourself...
I suppose I should be flattered.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
LOL the old objectivist double stnadard rears it's ugly head again
Where knowledge is lacking, I often suspend judgment. You know, 'neither affirm nor deny.'AS
"the old objectivist double stnadard rears it's ugly head again"You're the one with the double standard. For example, I have never suggested people should do DBTs to choose their equipment (although some few may prefer to do so). You don't use an ABX machine to choose your equipment, but you demand that I do so. That might strike some as hypocritical--I just think it reflects your confusion.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake claims: I have never suggested people should do DBTs to choose their equipment (although some few may prefer to do so).Shall we examine this statement closer? Pat D-Cake has readily admitted in the past that he, like myself doesn't use DBTs to select his audio components. Instead once again like myself Pat D-Cake sits at whatever place he visits and plays music and listens. In the end I assume that once again, like myself Pat D-Cake selects the audio components that he prefers the sound of. Now if he selects the component he prefers the sound of what would be the reason he prefers that components sound? As a music lover/audiophile I'd have to believe it because he believes that particular component replicates music the best for the $$$$ spent, no? I mean if that's not what Pat D-Cake does than I question why sit and listen anyway?
So if Pat D-Cake does indeed do what I and everyone else I know does, which is to listen and in the end select the component whose sound I/they prefer the most, because it replicates music the best. Then after this decision is made we all at some point purchase and then take home our prefered audio component selection. At this point Pat D-Cake has done what perhaps 99% of all audiophile/music lovers do, he's made a subjective decision about which component "sounds" best to him.
Now having purchased an audio component subjectively that he prefers sans any ABX/DBTs he brings it home and installs it in his system. Pat D-Cake, like you & I bought it soley because it was the audio component he/we prefered. Again as a professed music lover it would be logical to assume he/we made this subjective purchase of the audio component based on it's ability to replicate music. So Pat D-Cake like you and I also most likely believes this audio component replicated music the best of all like-priced components. This is once again what you, I and I believe 99% of us music lovers/audiophiles are doing when we buy audio components.
This unfortunately however is where Pat D-Cake changes and now starts to act like an objectivist typically treat subjectivists. For now when we subjectivists come on PHP and talk about our audio component which we selected like Pat D-Cake did, via listening subjectively and for the same reason Pat D-Cake did, because we believed this audio component replicated music the best of all like-priced components. Pat D-Cake now wants proof via DBTs, that our opinion that we selected the best sounding audio component for the $$$$$ is just that! So while it's true that Pat D-Cake never outright suggests that subjectvists use ABX/DBTs to select their audio components, he instead later demands that they prove the audio component they selected like he did for the same reasons he did, is what they believe it to be, which is this: the best audio component for the $$$$ spent. This is essentially demanding they choose their equipment via DBTs, for now they must take a DBT to verify to Pat D-Cake that they did indeed purchase the audio component that replicates music the best for the money spent!
So yes Pat D-Cake we all know YOU don't use an ABX machine to choose your equipment, but in the end you back-handedly demand that subjectivists do so. Which is very hypocritical--I just think your denying it reflects your confusion of what you're actually doing. Otherwise you'd simply suggest that we, like you we just subjectively selected the best sounding audio component for the $$$$$ spent!
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Regardless of what you believe the bottom line is you do not hold your beliefs, whatever they may be, to the same standards of proof you demand of others. That is a double standard.
Grow up.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You obviously mis-understand the purpose of ABX testing. It is supposedly to prove that people can hear a claimed difference once suggestive biases are removed.
It is not to make a preference choice between two items.Note the wording in the first sentence. If the result comes out as a null, the result is "not proved".. the result is NOT "does not exist" as is quite often wrongly interpretted.
the question still stands. do you or Pat use it when auditioning any components?
Not necessary because I would not be making "unsubstantiated claims" that require some sort of proof.This is the area where ABX is of use, getting people to back up their claims of audiblity differences, ...... if they sure enough of themselves, that is. (lol)
Unfortunately, very few of them are prepared to put themselves up to the test because they might not like the answer "no audible difference discerned".
I am simply talking about you auditioning new components. Let me make it real simple. *Have* you ever used ABX in the audition proccess for new components? if not why not?
DOH. I just answered your question in my first sentence.. please learn to read !!
Why is it so difficult to answer such a simple question? Here it is in English one more time. Do you use ABX when auditioning components and why or why not?
read the first sentence dimwit !!!
asswipe. Now why don't you answer the question? what are you afraid of?
sorry, but if you haven't the intelligence to read that first sentence, and see that it clearly answers both your questions, then it is pointless continuing !!
non-answer, and certainly doesn't add any information or insight into the "dialogue."After 70 or so posts, you've done a fine job of channelling Soundmind in the anger department. Congrats.
your lack of anything resembling understand becomes you.
But they don't answer my questions. If you don't have the inteligence to understand the difference between your vague declaration and a direct answers to very specific questions then you are an idiot. That you avoid answering those questions in so many posts with all this hand waving and name calling makes it pretty obvious that you really don't want to answer the questions at all. Gee I wonder why? Guess I did strike a nerve.
dude you are a joke
Oh crickey, I can't believe you are so THICK !!!
ok not ine syllable... but at least you MIGHT understand !!
gees I can't type !!ine = one just in case you are sooooo dim you couldn't figure it out
NOI'm not trying to sell something.
Why don't you use it?
because I/'m not like the rock and clock guys.. I do't need to prove anything to anyone, because I'm not trying to sell anything.
gees you are so darn thick its unbelieveable.you don't even understand basic statements.
how do you possibly function in life except by your own unjustified ego !
....am I trying to persuade anyone but myself that something is worth buying or even looking at.If you think you hear a difference in something, say just that.
Say, that you "think you hear a difference", DO NOT say that "there is a difference" unless you are PREPARED TO PROVE IT !!
geoff,I'd like to address this post of yours, hopefully without a lot of the typical stupidity that passes for responses to legitiment questions, ok?
You started this post by saying "...am I trying to persuade anyone but myself that something is worth buying or even looking at." While it's fairly obvious to me you're not attempting to persuade anyone but yourself geoff, I believe that statement would hold true for most if not all of us who purchase components for our audio systems. I believe we all come from the same POV you mentioned above. I definitely know when I purchased my amp I didn't do it to persuade anyone but myself that it was worth buying or even looking at.
Next geoff you said, "If you think you hear a difference in something, say just that." Well geoff I, along with almost every audiophile/music lover that exists buys a given component precisely because we think we hear a difference in something, no? I mean what other reason would one buy a new audio component? ONLY for looks? I honestly don't know anyone who ever changed audio components strictly because it looked prettier or better do you? Now I won't say that looks wouldn't matter at all. I can imagine someone looking to upgrade and while doing so they see 2 amps that while sounding the same as each other, sound much better than what he presently owns. Now this person might be willing to pay a little more for what he believes is the better looking amp. But he paid mainly for the better sound and then paid extra for better looks! This person knows he paid extra for the better looks and so he isn't fooling himself.
geoff you stated people should Say, that you "think you hear a difference", DO NOT say that "there is a difference" unless you are PREPARED TO PROVE IT !! Now geoff doesn't everyone who purchases a component believe they hear a difference? If not why wouldn't we all buy the cheapest solidstate amp with as much power as possible? Geoff you bought what you bought because you "think you hear a difference" 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 you think you heard a difference you most likely believe there is a difference or esle what do you think you're hearing?
Trust me geoff as much as many of the lunatic-fringe objectivists would proclaim differently I understand this concept. But I also know objectivists only require proof when subjectivists say they "think they hear a difference"!
Thetubeguy1954
I am speaking of the CHARLITANS of this world, like Belt and co, and the rock and clock guys.they have absolutely no foundation in any known modern science, and yet ask ridiulous prices for basically nothing.
It is really such a pity that there seem to be people who actually accept their tripe without any thought, because it riuns it for anything that may actually be an advancement.
Do you use an ABX box to choose equipment?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
it's really very simple. You have made comments about others frowing upon the use of it. So a simple question. Do you use it and why?Do I use an ABX box? No, I don't have one to use.
So what is up with the double standard? You say it's none of my business when I ask but then you turn around and ask me. Do you feel that you have some sort of special privilidge that you can challenge others on their ways of doing things but yours can not be questioned?
I trust you do understand the difference between ABX and DBT--or do you?Did you somehow miss the point I brought up that some make claims to hear very small differences in sound? Apparently you did miss it.
"So what is up with the double standard? You say it's none of my business when I ask but then you turn around and ask me."
You asked me, so I turned around and asked you.
"Do you feel that you have some sort of special privilidge that you can challenge others on their ways of doing things but yours can not be questioned?"
Silly question. Of course I have no special privileges. I do wonder why you ask irrelevant questions. Oh, you want to imply something or other, of course. I understand that.
What are those "ways of doing things" you are talking about. You will have to be more specific. But since you have already raised the question of choosing equipment, I will point out that I have not suggested one needs to use DBTs (much less an ABX machine) to choose equipment, unless one wants to. For some reason of your own you wish to suggest something that is contrary to fact.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
"I trust you do understand the difference between ABX and DBT--or do you?"ABX is a kind of DBT. One of many kinds.
"Did you somehow miss the point I brought up that some make claims to hear very small differences in sound? Apparently you did miss it."Apparently you will do anything to answer a simple question. Why? What are you running from?
""So what is up with the double standard? You say it's none of my business when I ask but then you turn around and ask me."
You asked me, so I turned around and asked you."
Yeah and unlike you I answered. What are you afraid of?
""Do you feel that you have some sort of special privilidge that you can challenge others on their ways of doing things but yours can not be questioned?"Silly question. Of course I have no special privileges."
Then just answer the question. I did.
" I do wonder why you ask irrelevant questions."
How is it irrelevant?
" Oh, you want to imply something or other, of course. I understand that."It looks like you are desperate to hide something what is it? Either you use it or you don't and either way you must have some reason for your choice. Why are you sooo afraid to discuss it?
"What are those "ways of doing things" you are talking about."
No it's your turn to answer the simple questions put before you.
" But since you have already raised the question of choosing equipment, I will point out that I have not suggested one needs to use DBTs (much less an ABX machine) to choose equipment, unless one wants to. For some reason of your own you wish to suggest something that is contrary to fact."
Where have I done any such thing? You seem quite paranoid. What is it about the truth about how you audition components that makes you so ashamed that you would do anything not to answer the question? So I'll ask it again, do you use ABX when auditioning components and why or why don't you use it? It's such a simple question. Why does it scare you so much to answer it?
I asked you that and you gave no satisfactory answer.What has whether I use blind tests to choose equipment to do with the price of eggs in China? Especially since I don't suggest using DBTs do choose equipment unless one wants to do.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Afraid of being exposed as a hypocrite?
I just played with you until you showed your true colors.Why should I answer an irrelevant question? If you're happy with those interconnects, speaker cables, bricks and other tweaks in your system, how does what I do affect you or your hearing abilities?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
The questions were very simple and straight forward. If you had no agenda to hide then there would have benn no reason for you not to answer the questions. And still you don't answer the questions. Why not? What are you afraid of?
You're almost as bad as TG54.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You take the lead here
Well, maybe that's safer for you.Is that your idea of integrity?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
One need look any further then this exchange to see your lack of integrity.
Gees Pat, we are trying to communicate with one of the dimmest lights in the universe !!!
what a load of crap. You are trying to avoid a straight forward discussion on the use of ABX in the auditioning of potential purchases of new components. Funny how you guys squirm when the shoe is on the other foot.
We haven't recommended that you use DBTs for choosing equipment.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Why can't you simply answer simple questions about ABX?
Are making unsupported allegations your idea of integrity?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You just can't help yourself can you?
> Do you feel that you have some sort of special privilidge that you can challenge others on their ways of doing things but yours can not be questioned? <Haven't seen you here on PropHead before but you certainly have a good handle on things! That's exactly what happens around here. They challenge but they use misdirection when challenged back. Yes, you struck a nerve all right - a BIIIIIIIG one! LOL!
Nah, Analog Scott is not new. He's another kibitzer who adds nothing much of substance to the discussions but engages in misrepresentation, pseudo-psychology, and name calling. Funny thing is, he mostly agrees with jj. Strange.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Isn't that dog food?> Funny thing is, he mostly agrees with jj. <
I would say I agreed with jj about half the time. I do wish he had hung around. He had a way of fostering good informational discussions.
Pat's cry for help no doubt. He has no substance so he resorts to the last tactic to everyone fighting an argument they no they have already lost.
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Gees, why is it so hard to get through to you !!The people who like to avoid ABX are very often those making unsubstaniated claims with the intent to sell something, usually at silly prices, or those who don't want their ego bruised by having to back up claims they have made about some difference they say they can hear.
If all you are doing is selecting gear for one's self, and you are not making ludicrious claims, then no proof is required, hence no need for ABX.
Are avoiding it themselves but don't want to talk about it. Or am I wrong and you and Pat have been using it to audtion components?
I have told you my position. You are just soooooo illiterate you can't understand it !!!
much of a prick or did it take years of hard work to get there?
Ludicrous claims are the basis of the rift between subjectivists and objectivists. An objectivist ludicrous claim, for example, would be Peter Aczel's claim that all amplifiers sound alike (with his impedances, not clipping, etc accounted for). Do you agree with his ludicrous claim? If so, have you ABX'd all these amps? You see, after listening to a fair number of components in several different systems over the years, I'm comfortable with just listening. Sometimes things sound different, sometimes they don't.The best way to find out if your POV is correct is to get out there and perform all the DBT's you feel you need. As for me, I have to see the component. Otherwise, I'm liable to plug a speaker cable into my headphone socket! :)
"Ludicrous claims are the basis of the rift between subjectivists and objectivists. An objectivist ludicrous claim, for example, would be Peter Aczel's claim that all amplifiers sound alike (with his impedances, not clipping, etc accounted for). Do you agree with his ludicrous claim?"Why do think the claim is ludicrous? I do not see it as ludricous because many amplifiers that genuinely sound different do not satisfy one or more of the criteria listed by Aczel. For example most if not all zero feedback amplifiers have high distortion and high output impedance, and as a result generally modify the behaviour of the partnering speaker .
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
HowdyYou said "For example most if not all zero feedback amplifiers have high distortion and high output impedance, and as a result generally modify the behaviour of the partnering speaker."
So do my amps have high distortion or high output impedance?
Type Solid State Configuration Mono Power Supply Transformers 2 x 1kVA Power Supply Capacitance 216,000µF Class Of Operation A/AB RCA Inputs 1 pair   (normal & phase inverted) Balanced Input XLR Input Device Type J-FETs Input Impedance 47,500 ohms Input Sensitivity 1080mV RMS Output Device Type Bipolars - 20 Output Binding Posts WBT Output Power @ 8 ohms 750 Watts Output Power @ 4 ohms 1400 Watts Output Power @ 2 ohms 2200 Watts Frequency Response 10Hz - 200kHz   +0/-3dB Output Impedance 0.005 ohms Damping Factor   (static) 1600 Gain 37dB Dynamic Headroom 6dB Signal-to-noise Ratio 100dB @ full power Maximum Output Voltage 75 Volts Slew Rate 80V/µs Maximum Current - Peak 85 amperes Maximum Current - Continuous 35 amperes Crosstalk @ 1kHz Not applicable IMD Unmeasureable THD   (20Hz - 20kHz @ 1 watt) < 0.02 % THD   (20Hz - 20kHz @ 750 watts) < 0.05 %
Well, rather let us put this way, those specs suggest that the amplifier is NOT a "zero negative feedback" amplifier .
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Well, Sim Audio claims "no overall feedback" on their site, rather than no feedback, and it does appear to be an excellent amp.http://www.simaudio.com/moonw10.htm
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
HowdyI sure like them :)
Simaudio choose their language carefully "no overall feedback" ,I looked at their site and they use negative feedback but not global negative feedback 8), so there you have it's all about marketing your product in the best possible light.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
HowdyThere is a difference between feedback only on the output transistors and more global feedback, i.e. it not just marketing.
Howdy,I sent a comment to you over the weekend over a post thetubeguy1954, are his posts which amount nothing more than personal character attacks going to stay?
Tubeguy has his issues, as he usually reacts defensively before cooling down, but personally I find AJinFLA's posts to be incredibly rude and immature. If you're calling for one transgressor to be deleted, then be prepared for many more to follow.Too bad so many "audiophiles" have to be assh@les. I imagine that the personality flaws we witness so clearly in the Asylum have a greater effect on chasinfg people away from the hobby than little jars of pebbles do....;)
"Tubeguy has his issues, as he usually reacts defensively before cooling down"Are you now excusing thetubeguy1954 terrible conduct on this board on account of AJ behaviour?
" I find AJinFLA's posts to be incredibly rude and immature"
You could say the same for many other posters, this board was supposed to be a forum for technical discussion that can be validated by meters or controlled listening tests. However it has not turned that way, the insecure have set up camp and as a result, most of the knowledgeable posters have either been banned or are staying away.
"I imagine that the personality flaws we witness so clearly in the Asylum have a greater effect on chasinfg people away from the hobby than little jars of pebbles do....;) "
I know you are joking :D
"Are you now excusing thetubeguy1954 terrible conduct on this board on account of AJ behaviour?"Absolutely not: I'm pointing out that there is a lot of bad behavior on this Forum. Bad behavior coming from opposite "camps" doesn't cancel out: I think it is actually cummulative.
"You could say the same for many other posters, this board was supposed to be a forum for technical discussion that can be validated by meters or controlled listening tests. However it has not turned that way, the insecure have set up camp and as a result, most of the knowledgeable posters have either been banned or are staying away."I HAVE said the same about many posters here. Where I may disagree with the implications of your assessment is that IMHO one of the worst offenders was Soundmind, who often had interesting things to discuss, but simply couldn't do it without resorting to insult and schoolyard bullying. The ease of acting the part of the donkey's rear end has no connection to type or breadth of knowledge of the poster, and certainly has nothing to do with being an insecure subjectivist or an insecure objectivist.
"I know you are joking :D"Well, a bit. Actually, given the "debates" I continue to have with Geoff Kait, my statement simply points out how strongly I feel that even with extreme disagreement, as hobbyists who share a love of music, there really is no need for such rancor. Frankly, I've stopped learning from people here, and no longer find the squabbles fun in the least.
Cheers! I've got a beautiful recording of Ellington and Blanton waiting for me......;)
HowdyAs I have stated repeatedly here, I am not a moderator of this forum and as such certainly don't get comments from posts here. Also, as I have mentioned, no one has stepped up to moderate Propeller Head Plaza so I don't know who gets comments from Prop Heads besides Rod.
Hi there,I said "zero negative feedback" not "zero global negative feedback". whatever their marketing literature says, it is simply a different take on the same old principle i.e. applying feedback to improve the linearity of an active device(s).
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
I was saying he should have used the word "BECAUSE" where he used the word "though".I think you thought I was arguing about the word "because" ?? maybe??
I didn't read your post carefully enough.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
didn't want to start arguing about the same thing while on the same side, now do we !
"didn't want to start arguing about the same thing while on the same side, now do we !"That's an interesting point of view . . .
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
not sure what you are asking, sorry !
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: