|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
86.131.97.184
In Reply to: Thank GOD, I Won't Have To Listen To You Whine Anymore posted by thetubeguy1954 on March 9, 2007 at 12:44:17:
Follow Ups:
Yes Clifffff it's quite sad that you'd say just yesterday "I stopped reading his posts long ago." yet here you are unable to stop reading & commenting on my posts! Just 24 hours later!http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29648.html
nt
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36074Hysterical and frightening at the same time. I've always figured most of the subjectivists here to be somewhat mentally dysfunctional, but in a harmless sort of way. The last part gets a little scary.
I hope I don't have to put a restraining order on TG54 anytime soon :-).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
POLLYinFLA,Thanks for the laugh. You're going to put out a restraining order on someone who publically claims the thought of meeting you disgusts him? Someone will do everything in his power to avoid being near you? That just shows how deranged you thought process is. Trust me if I know it's you, I'll be going the other way. I never want to meet you for any reason.
...private blog area is going to record the truth, and nothing but the truth? It's sad that you, or anyone else, would put yourselves in position to be deceived by one so wicked. I chickened out of nothing, to say that I did indicates willful ignorance at the very least. I believe your particular issue is much deeper than that however.
After a quick look at Peter Aczel's list Wellfed, I can see only one sentence I agree with and that is Peter Aczel's "The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true." -I agree, May!!
One sentence of Peter Aczel's which I vehemently disagree with is "Just say no to CD treatments."
Coincidentally, just before I read Peter Aczel's list, I had been re-reading Robert Harley's article on freezing CDs (Stereophile October 1990) - in my opinion one of the most significant articles in the history of Hi Fi. Particularly his last two paragraphs.> > > "My fascination with CD tweaks stems not from their intrinsic abilities to improve CD sound as much as it comes from the realisation that if ANY tweak has even the SLIGHTEST audible effect, conventional digital audio theory is turned upside down. More importantly, however, the widespread acceptance and belief in CD tweaks may make skeptical engineers LISTEN for themselves, perhaps sparking an investigation into why they work. Such research may lead to fundamental new discoveries in digital audio that will drastically improve its performance.
Furthermore, I see CD tweaks as a Rosetta Stone to an audio engineering establishment that dismisses the possibility that freezing a CD or painting it black, or putting green paint around the edge, or making it from a different material, could affect its sound. Because these treatments are considered the epitome of audiophile lunacy. Perhaps some measurement-orientated scientists may, if they listen for themselves, realize that audiophiles are not always the demented mystics they are often accused of being." < < <
Regards,
May Belt.
I've often remarked that the function of audio magazines seems to be to sell turnkey technology: The quick brown truck delivers a large brown box inside which is a black metal box which you plug into your system and live happily with for a while. Then comes another truck...
When arguing about the lack of need for experimentation in audio, I've often read objectivists posting that they "don't need to bang my head against concrete to know it hurts". That argument fails on two levels.First, we all learned as young children that hitting our heads against something hard would hurt. I would wager that ALL of us learned it the hard way, if you'll pardon the pun, and NONE of us learned it via a parental lecture.
Second, after a few years of martial arts training many moons ago, I learned to break concrete bricks with my head, as well as other parts of my body. It doesn't hurt - once you are properly trained. I would suggest that hearing differences between cables, amps, etc is simply a matter of training. Anyone can learn to do so if they are motivated, just as anyone can learn to break concrete bricks.
The believers are just that - believers. Reality must be experienced.
"First, we all learned as young children that hitting our heads against something hard would hurt. I would wager that ALL of us learned it the hard way, if you'll pardon the pun, and NONE of us learned it via a parental lecture"?? Also true of
Sticking fingers in 230V socket
Jumping off high building
Leaping into lion's den
etc etc
> ?? Also true ofSticking fingers in 230V socket
Jumping off high building
Leaping into lion's den
<A matter of degree only. As a child, I was burned when I got a shock from an electric radio (I also learned that unplugged electronics can still carry voltage!), most kids have fallen off something high and many people have been bitten by dogs or scratched by cats, or know someone who has. The point is that you learn this by experience. What you learn by reading (or by other non-experiential means) is a belief. That doesn't mean much of it isn't reality - but some of it may not be.
So it is with audio. If you are an objectivist, the chances are good that you have little or no experience comparing (by listening) that which you believe can make no difference. You believe this because you believe it, not because you know it. Opening one's mind doesn't mean accepting every little claim - rather it means that you decide to experiment for yourself. Or your mind is closed, the same as my mind is closed to certain things. But it's still only a belief.
"If you are an objectivist, the chances are good that you have little or no experience comparing (by listening) that which you believe can make no difference. "How could you possibly know this about anybody, you are making a huge presumption in order support an unreasonable point. Again, cos it bears repeating, those of objective persuasion (i.e. objective evaluation of components) subscribe to comparison by listening, however for a comparison to be valid as a basis for valid opinion, it needs to satisfy certain controls, controls that address inherent listener bias.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> How could you possibly know this about anybody, <The way I know much of what I know - experience. However, in order to satisfy your sense of fair play, I'll concede your point and start with you. What cables or amps have you compared? Any objectivist is encouraged to reply. It will only tell us about those on this board but it's a start. Also, when it comes to proper controls, how many DBT's have you participated in?
> controls that address inherent listener bias. <
Something else that bears repeating - Because my one bias when it comes to audio gear is that the best sounding item wins, unless it can be shown that I have other biases and what they are, there is no need to address them. I couldn't care less about brand names, looks, cost or any other potential biases you can name, including the bias that two items must sound different.
> The way I know much of what I know - experience. However, in order to satisfy your sense of fair play, I'll concede your point and start with you. What cables or amps have you compared? Any objectivist is encouraged to reply. It will only tell us about those on this board but it's a start. Also, when it comes to proper controls, how many DBT's have you participated in?I will not satisfy your curiosity ;-) and the original point still stands as you have made an assumption here that is invalid. That said, I look to measurements cos some of the more obvious differences between amplifiers are easily explained by measurements.
> Something else that bears repeating - Because my one bias when it comes to audio gear is that the best sounding item wins, unless it can be shown that I have other biases and what they are, there is no need to address them. I couldn't care less about brand names, looks, cost or any other potential biases you can name, including the bias that two items must sound different.
Well, in blind tests, the issues you state are so important to the outcome of the test that they are not assumed, hence the controls, at any rate "best sounding" can mean anything, the goals of most blind test are generally less ambigous.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> I will not satisfy your curiosity ;-) and the original point still stands as you have made an assumption here that is invalid. <Show me where I got it wrong and I'll be happy to admit it. Sorry, you can't just say something is invalid - at least not 'round these here parts! :)
> I look to measurements cos some of the more obvious differences between amplifiers are easily explained by measurements. <
Yes. I would agree that any and all sonic differences between any two pieces of gear could be explained by measurements. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. We just have to find them, in some cases.
I agree with the first Aczel quote you posted as being the only (or one of the very few) true statements he made in the article. But I've jawed over Aczel enough on Critics Corner - people will think of him as messiah or pariah depending on their beliefs... as well they should, IMO. People will either believe or find reality via their own experimentation, whichever side of the Sub/Ob they're on. Without such experiementation, all we have is belief - either in sonic differences between things that science tells us can't exist, or in science itself. Without experimentation, our "reality" is simply a set of beliefs. Aczel has his set of beliefs and that's fine for him. I prefer to find my own way rather than blindly follow a path set for me by "believers".Consequently, I didn't "just say no" to CD treatments. I tried several of them and they didn't work for me. The difference between the Aczels and the subjectivists is that the latter isn't content to simply "believe". Aczel's reality isn't necessarily mine - and most of the time, it isn't.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: