On Sep 27, 10:51=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...
Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
=3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?
No, unless you missed it, Scott, my position is:
=A0 =A0 Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
=A0 =A0 to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
No, I didn't miss it Dick. In case you missed it I was of the
*opinion* that there was an *inference* built into this post.
=A0 Because
that looks to be the argument you are infering by suggesting we look
at Steve Hoffman's opinions of a particular product based on *sighted*
listening before we consider the results of his *blind* comparisons of
a fresh cut laquer and the master tape.
It looks that, maybe, to YOU. I certainly made no such inference.
Thus YOU get to take responsibility for YOUR perception. I shan't.
OK thanks for the correction. So this was a random musing of some sort
that just coincidentally gave the appearance to be an attempt to
discredit Steve Hoffman's blind comparisons? fair enough. So I guess
you agree that in fact the results of *blind listening tests* are not
invalidated simply because the listener has, at some point in his or
her life has been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions.
That you would post a particular cherry picked observation made under
sighted conditions in response to my posting his reports of a blind
comaprison was mere coincidence not meant to infer that there was
anything wrong with the cited blind comparison.
I would expect better than an argument of prejudice and ad hominem
from an industry pro like yourself against a fellow industry pro.
It is not an ad hominem attack, it is merely a pointer
to publically available information. Any inferences YOU
take to that effect are yours to own and be proud of. I
won't take any credit for your perceptions.
Indeed, authors should never take credit for any percpetions generated
by what they write. Juxtapostion is something that no author should be
held accountable for. I really shouldn't have given any consideration
to where you placed your random cherry picked observation and should
have read no inference from it. All apologies. I don't even know where
I got the idea that anyone would ever make inferences or use passive
aggressive tactics to discredit others with opposing points of view.
That never happens. I apologize again for my complete misreading of
your post. I am pleased to know that you did not actually make the
logical fallacy that the results of *blind listening tests* are
invalid if the listener has at some point in their life been swayed by
bias effects under *sighted* conditions and that the information you
posted in no way has any bearing on the blind comparsions made by
Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray between master tape and playback of a
freshly cut laquer.