[Scott[_6_]]

On Jul 13, 4:15Â*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:

Nope. Straw man. ?And you should know better.
here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim
audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured
performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables,
for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)."
You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for
moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that
these were Steve's words in context)

What does the word 'typical' mean to you, Scott? Does it mean 'all'?



Main Entry:typ·i·cal
Pronunciation:\ˈti-pi-kəl\
Function:adjective
Etymology:Late Latin typicalis, from typicus, from Greek typikos, from
typos model €” more at type
Date:1609
1: constituting or having the nature of a type : symbolic
2 a: combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group
typical suburban houses b: conforming to a type a specimen typical
of the species



Please now and forever stop claiming the me, Arny, or any of the
other people you argue with about this over and over, claim that
*All* (X) sound *the same*. Thanks.


How can I stop something I am not doing? What does the word
"standard"
mean to you Steve? Is it something radically different than typical?
After all this is what I said;
"You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict
that all CDPs sound the same"
Your words once again....
"Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
for output devices, of course). "
So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that
audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about
audible differences between CDPs? Sure looks like that was what you
were saying. And when I pointed out that this wasn't always the case
and has been demonstrated with DBTs no less you went into a tail spin
begging for details and claiming this would be a "slam dunk" for
subjectivists were it true. So you weren't arguing that CDPs all sound
the same despite audiophile anecdotes? What was your point then? That
audiophiles routinely report differences that are not predicted by
"typical" measured performance and sometimes they are right?! Fine, if
that is your point I agree with you.



You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before
you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists',
wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything
there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'.
So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at
straws here.

I think you need to review the history of 20th C physics. You're out
of your depth.


I think you do as well. So what? What does are mutual disresepct for
the other's off hand knowledge on the history of quantum physics have
to do with my point? the point which for some reason you decided to
snip. Here I'll repeat it so we can try to stay on topic.Many things
derived from quantum physics would have seemed like magic 150 years or
so ago
and would have actually met the Randi challenge. Do you disagree?