"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


I do too. But this group is plagued by an audio Taliban.
They exhibit the "engineering mentality" at it's worst.
And personally, I'm tired of the engineering mentality. There are too
many engineers with gray, picky,
people-deficient personalities, and a blinkered view of
life. They miss the colors of life.

Yup, shoot all the engineers. Watch society slip back into the way things
were in prehistoric times. Who needs running water? Who needs medicine?
This seems to be an invitation to flame.
I'll pass.

Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting you have a death wish, LOt"S! LOL! ;-)

Yup, shoot all the engineers.

We'd be all too happy to oblige your request, except that the Normals don't
consider you to be an engineer. (In case you're wondering why that is, it's
because you have a cheesy, fourth-rate semi-education, no professional
experience, and no demonstrable ability as an engineer.)

Now, if you invite us to shoot all the wannabe pseudo-engineers, no question
you'll see a quick execution. ;-)


..
..

"124" wrote in message
ups.com...
The following questions are for subjectivists. When you close your
eyes, does the sound from your audio system decrease in quality? If
the quality drops, why does it drop? What is it about having to see
the device that improves the sound?

My system sounds the same either way. Behringer Truths on an Intel-based
system I built. Great detail, great soundstage, great bass. Down to the
30's.

Thus spake 124:
Snipped
You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to sound a little
like objectivists. And, as Martha might say, that is a good thing.
Beware of assimilation. Fear the hive.

I would not join any club that would have me as a member *eg* Then again
there's 7 of 9 to...

Originally, I didn't see any weaknesses in DB testing but now I do. This is
a pity, this form of testing seemed pretty bullet-proof until I thought
about the reliability of memory regarding comparisons of sequences. When
broadened out to include fairly subjective aspects of human enjoyment such
as smell, taste etc, tempered by my own experiences, I was a lot less sure
that DB testing is useful in this context.

The main weakness of such testing is to prove there's a difference between
negative results 'cos those aspects aren't real but imagined & false
negatives 'cos the method is faulty. The only way I can think of is to
introduce an initial calibration stage of known & repeatable differences to
test the worth of the whole procedure. If subjects can't hear fairly major
differences, I'd call into question the effectiveness of the tests. This
calibration stage wouldn't be simple: who decides what level of say
distortion or S/N ratio is significant? Unfortunately, despite sounding like
a parrot, this calibration stage has been neither endorsed or rubbished.
There's absolutely no point to tests that a significant number of people are
unconvinced by. Despite spending 30yrs in calibration & repair of electronic
test equipment & having a fair understanding where the so-called
objectivists are coming from, I'm still unwilling to write off my own
subjective experience (& that of countless others) that I'm merely
projecting my own imagined perceptions. In my favour is that I recognise
that some changes go backwards & alternating between devices can help
eliminate imagined differences. Always be sceptical!

There are some very powerful objections to this POV: the fact that the
variables that /should/ effect sound quality are fairly well understood &
these differences should therefore be easy to measure & quantify. However,
the argument that new laws of physics would be required is IMO over-egging
the cake. I'm unconvinced that the current ways of measuring audio
parameters are always up to the task. Human senses are very good at
detecting minute & relative differences, whilst test equipment being equally
good at absolute & repeatable measurements but with fairly static variables.
These measurements may only be an approximation that fail to capture the
subtle but crucial aspects that differentiate the average from the sublime.

Many here seem unwilling to acknowledge the possibility of external
influences such as being able to see what's being listened to could
influence the outcome. This is not a fixed quantity as has been pointed out,
some may well be more prone than others or certain individuals bear
prejudice against a particular product but otherwise are perfectly rational
& impartial. The point is to minimise non-auditory effects & cut to the
quick of how something sounds & help to level the playing field. One thing
at a time: a manufacturer wanting to know how a produce looks to prospective
customers will ask as a separate question to how it sounds. If he gets
feedback that a product sounds great but looks crap, he's going to know
where to expend further effort before launching & perhaps gain much
satisfaction that his team has at least got the core function bang on but
needs nicer lettering or a decent logo on the front panel to ice the cake. I
bet I'm not the only person to reject a device outright because it looks so
damn naff or is poorly made!

"Paul B" wrote in message


Originally, I didn't see any weaknesses in DB testing but
now I do. This is a pity, this form of testing seemed
pretty bullet-proof until I thought about the reliability
of memory regarding comparisons of sequences.

This very same issue affects sighted evaluations. Sighted evaluators
*overcome* this problem by taking advantage of the inability of sighted
evaluations to identify and control false positives.

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:


I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to sound a little
like objectivists. And, as Martha might say, that is a good thing.
Beware of assimilation. Fear the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone else gets
capitals and I don't.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:


I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never
argued against this.

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to
sound a little like objectivists. And, as Martha might
say, that is a good thing. Beware of assimilation. Fear
the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone
else gets capitals and I don't.

Paul, anything that puts you into a different category than Morein would be
a good thing.

paul packer wrote:

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to sound a little
like objectivists. And, as Martha might say, that is a good thing.
Beware of assimilation. Fear the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone else gets
capitals and I don't.

Did you mention in a fairly recent post that you do not put much faith
in fancy wires? I forgot your exact words, but George warned you of
becoming assimilated. As for the capitals, on the news reader that I
am using, your name comes out in lower case. I thought you preferred it
this way. Sorry, Paul. In the future, capitals only. Incidentally,
did you set your e-mail client to display your name in lower case?

--124

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves the sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media you would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does knowing the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all. It only affects your *belief* about the sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

paul packer wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:14:01 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

The basis of our
disagreement is your assertion -- if you still make it -- that sighted
testing is worthless regardless of whether the listener has developed some
immunity to psychological bias.

Actually that's the part I don't get at all. Why should the sight of
the equipment affect one's audible perception of it?


Why should the sight of *anything* affect your attitude towards it?

Yet clearly, it does, right?

Some brilliant
equipment looks bloody awful--NAD for one. Or are they saying that
because the listener knows it's a high end brand he will
subconsciously hear a high-end sound?


Could do. That's enough to require a control for it.


If so, what if we take certain
manuacturers-- Marantz and Teac, say--who make both garden variety and
super-duper products (that's the technical term). Both of those
manufacturers have high-end lines, so would the knowlwedge that one
was listening to a Teac or Marantz subconsciously downgrade the
listening experience? And if so, why have so many of these elite-line
products from down-market manufacturers received such great reviews?


Because they are marketed as 'elite line'? Of course, one snob's
'elite' is another's 'down-market'. There are audiophiles who
wouldn't consider *any* product by these manufacterers as *truly*
'elite'.


Really, do you seriously believe that belief is *always* accurate,
and *never* erroneously influenced by perception? Do you
realize that if this were true, then scientific advances would
be incalculably easier to achieve? Believe me, scientists
*wish* it were true.


Another question for the objectivists which I've yet to see fully
addressed. For years Hi-Fi Choice (at least) has been conducting blind
panel tests. That is. a mixed group of people listen to an array of
amps, say, hidden behind a curtain. In every test, apparently, clear
differences have been discerned. Not only that, but the same amp is
sometimes brought back to see if the panel's reaction is (more or
less) the same. If you read the full results, the biggest discrepancy
that occurs in these tests is in the "hands-on" listening, when the
reviewer supervising the tests takes the product home for a few days
and ends up rating it quite differently, not only from the panel's
rating, but his own reactions during the tests. Now this I find
significant.

If find sighted results pretty insignificant in such cases, whether long
or short term ;

But point me to one of their tests, where the methods and results
are laid out adequately, and I'll see if I can tell what they're really
up to. I presume for, say, amps, they are carefully level-matching,
performing the tests double-blind and randomized, not allowing
the participants to confer about their choices during the test,
and doing an adequate number of trials to make a reasonable call of
statistical difference, right?






--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )

That's the AR demo. We beat that to death when Howard brought it up.
Edison was able to make a similar claim with his cylinders.

Stephen

Paul B wrote:
Thus spake 124:
Snipped
You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to sound a little
like objectivists. And, as Martha might say, that is a good thing.
Beware of assimilation. Fear the hive.

I would not join any club that would have me as a member *eg* Then again
there's 7 of 9 to...

Originally, I didn't see any weaknesses in DB testing but now I do. This is
a pity, this form of testing seemed pretty bullet-proof until I thought
about the reliability of memory regarding comparisons of sequences.

DBTs can certainly take into account that memory for subtle details of sound
isn't particularly good. There's been an awful lot of research into
retention of memory for sounds, you know.


When
broadened out to include fairly subjective aspects of human enjoyment such
as smell, taste etc, tempered by my own experiences, I was a lot less sure
that DB testing is useful in this context

You mean, in the context of simply listening to music? Not at all. But for
explaining what you've heard, and *why you heard it*, it's not just useful, but
essential, that you take into account the unreliability of perception. And
thus comes the need for DBTs, if you want to make reliably true claims.


Since audiophilia is *ostensibly* concerned with correlating *what we hear*
to *what gear we're listening to', then, alas, DBTs are *highly*
necessary to make accurate correlations. But audiophilia, at least
at the level of its most popular journals, doesn't *really* seem
concerned with demonstrating that correlation. Audiophilia wants
to make a show of scientific objectivity (e.g., bench tests) but rejects
the accepted scientific methods for establishing that a difference was
really heard.



The main weakness of such testing is to prove there's a difference between
negative results 'cos those aspects aren't real but imagined & false
negatives 'cos the method is faulty.


No, because a negative only really has local significance, unless
it is replicated. A negative result literally only tells you that
that person failed to hear a difference in that test.
A positive, on the other hand, is 'forever'. (In both cases
we're assuming the test was done properly.)

What is distressing about audio gear isn't that there are so many
negative DBT results...it's the rarity of *POSITIVES* for some
classes of gear. And this isn't a problem with the test.
Positive results in DBTs certainly occur, and thus far always
reveal a measurable reason. Also, you can take anyone who isn't
stone deaf and feed them two signals that they can positively
differentiate in a DBT. As you decrease the level of difference,
there will come a point where they no longer can score positive,
even if they continue to believe they're hearing a difference.

At the level of gear, it's well known that people will tend
to be able to differentiate different loudspeakers in a blind
test. With 'training' almost anyone can. This is something
one coudl reasonably predict from the nature of loudspeakers:
they're electromechanical transducers, by far the grossest
distortion-makers in most systems.



The only way I can think of is to
introduce an initial calibration stage of known & repeatable differences to
test the worth of the whole procedure. If subjects can't hear fairly major
differences, I'd call into question the effectiveness of the tests. This
calibration stage wouldn't be simple: who decides what level of say
distortion or S/N ratio is significant?


Such a calibration test would do exactly that: it would provide a
reference threshold, against which the test results can be compared.
It's not a bad idea at all -- Arny recommends it for ABX tests.
Scientists routinely do suject training sessions when running
psychoacoustic experiments.

But the thing is, your average review in Stereophile usually
involves someone making claims that show they are *convinced*
they hear something. When someone *already* claims to hear
a difference, it's OK to go ahead and test that claim.


Unfortunately, despite sounding like
a parrot, this calibration stage has been neither endorsed or rubbished.


Untrue. Listener training has been endorsed by every 'objectivist'
I can think of.


There's absolutely no point to tests that a significant number of people are
unconvinced by. Despite spending 30yrs in calibration & repair of electronic
test equipment & having a fair understanding where the so-called
objectivists are coming from, I'm still unwilling to write off my own
subjective experience (& that of countless others) that I'm merely
projecting my own imagined perceptions. In my favour is that I recognise
that some changes go backwards & alternating between devices can help
eliminate imagined differences. Always be sceptical!


By all means, do whatever you can to eliminate 'imagined' differences.
This what controls are for.

The bias *against* believing that we are so fallible as to
imagine unreal differences, is strong in people. People don't
often *want* to believe that their perception is fallible. But
alas tons of evidence from psychological research demonstrates
otherwise.

Now imagine you are a reviewer for Stereophile. How often would
you like it demonstrated that you *probably* (remember, it's
all statistical) didn't hear what you thought you heard?
Can you imagine Mikey Fremer's blood pressure after a couple
of those experiences?



There are some very powerful objections to this POV: the fact that the
variables that /should/ effect sound quality are fairly well understood &
these differences should therefore be easy to measure & quantify. However,
the argument that new laws of physics would be required is IMO over-egging
the cake. I'm unconvinced that the current ways of measuring audio
parameters are always up to the task. Human senses are very good at
detecting minute & relative differences, whilst test equipment being equally
good at absolute & repeatable measurements but with fairly static variables.
These measurements may only be an approximation that fail to capture the
subtle but crucial aspects that differentiate the average from the sublime.

They may, but the onus is on the people who claim to hear stuff,
and that measurements aren't capturing it, to demonstrate that
that's true. Science is always open to new models, but you gotta
show the evidence. It's not enough to 'suppose'.


The point is to minimise non-auditory effects & cut to the
quick of how something sounds & help to level the playing field.


And no popular source of audiophile reviews currently does this.
It's not that they use a DBT test that *might* be flawed; they're
using a method that is *demonstrably* flawed.





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of
eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his
own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a
screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )


today, you could perform the same trick with a Bose Wave radio
and a room full of Wal-Mart shoppers.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Sillybot keeps on truckin'.

DBTs

In case anybody's forgotten, Stupey Sillybot has ZERO experience with audio
DBTs. The nasty little 'bot has never participated in one, or observed one,
and certainly never designed or evaluated one.

Sillybot is the empty bladder of audio DBTs.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

I've heard of this. I still can't imagine such a thing.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )

LOL Riiiiight!

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of
eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his
own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a
screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )


today, you could perform the same trick with a Bose Wave radio
and a room full of Wal-Mart shoppers.


LOL Exactly.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves the
sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media you
would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does knowing the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all.

Correct.

It only affects your *belief* about the
sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.

If you re-read the above, you'll see that Vlad, for some reason,
believed that I thought differently. I was simply pointing out that
seeing the item doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE the sound. I think that Vlad
misread 124's question.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article . com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves the
sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media you
would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does knowing the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all.

Correct.

It only affects your *belief* about the
sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.

If you re-read the above, you'll see that Vlad, for some reason,
believed that I thought differently. I was simply pointing out that
seeing the item doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE the sound. I think that Vlad
misread 124's question.

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc. :-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article
. com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that improves
the
sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media you
would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a
device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the
device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does knowing
the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all.

Correct.

It only affects your *belief* about the
sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.

If you re-read the above, you'll see that Vlad, for some reason,
believed that I thought differently. I was simply pointing out that
seeing the item doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE the sound. I think that Vlad
misread 124's question.

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc. :-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

Vlad, you're totally misunderstanding the posts. The question from the
OP was: "Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?" The question is not, "Does knowing the identity of a device
affect one's PERCEPTION of the sound quality." Obviously, the ACTUAL
SOUND of a thing doesn't change when you open your eyes, right? The
PERCEPTION might change, not the ACTUAL SOUND.

Jenn,

I am glad we understand each other. So next time when you will be
"stunned" by the liveliness of the sound from LP, just imagine for
a second that may be it is not the sound but your brain. Your brain
intervenes and creates certain perception affected by the known
identity of the source :-).

If you prefer to think that LP's possess some mystical properties for
capturing the sound it is your choice. You are entitled to it. It is
your right. Bit remember - it makes you an easy catch for snake oil
salesmen. You know high end analog equipment is still expensive.

On my side I stopped worrying about religious issues (LP vs. CD) long
time ago. As a rational person I believe that the elegance and
simplicity of technology helps to get better sound. LP's as a
transfer media are horribly complex and unreliable technically. Surface
noise, distortion, degradation after each play, you name it. Being
mathematician by training I understand all information issues involved.
And believe me LP does not hold the candle to CD as an information
storage media. So I am all for CD's.

But of course if you like your music served from LP's it is your
choice. Just don't pretend that there is anything beyond your
personal preference. It drives people who really understand technical
issues mad. (Not me :-) I am amused.)

Happy LP listening!

vlad

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article
.com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article
. com,
"124" wrote:

Jenn wrote:

What is it about having to see the device that
improves
the
sound?

Nothing.

The next question is very closely related to the previous
question.
Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?

--124

Nope.

Of course, it does, Jenn. You are a live example of it. Don't
you
prefer LP's?
I am sure that in a test that hides identity of the the media
you
would
fail miserably.

vlad

Let's be clear: You are stating that knowing the identity of a
device
affects the actual sound quality? Wow.

Nope, you are wrong, unfortunately. Knowing the identity of the
device
affects perception of sound quality. Do you agree?

vlad

But that wasn't the question, Vlad. The question was, "Does
knowing
the
identity of a device AFFECT THE SOUND QUALITY?"

It doesn't affect the sound at all.

Correct.

It only affects your *belief* about the
sound.
This is simpy restating what Vlad said.

If you re-read the above, you'll see that Vlad, for some reason,
believed that I thought differently. I was simply pointing out that
seeing the item doesn't ACTUALLY CHANGE the sound. I think that Vlad
misread 124's question.

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc. :-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

Vlad, you're totally misunderstanding the posts. The question from the
OP was: "Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?" The question is not, "Does knowing the identity of a device
affect one's PERCEPTION of the sound quality." Obviously, the ACTUAL
SOUND of a thing doesn't change when you open your eyes, right? The
PERCEPTION might change, not the ACTUAL SOUND.

Jenn,

I am glad we understand each other. So next time when you will be
"stunned" by the liveliness of the sound from LP, just imagine for
a second that may be it is not the sound but your brain. Your brain
intervenes and creates certain perception affected by the known
identity of the source :-).

And next time you listen to CDs and marvel at the accuracy of the
instrumental timbres, remember that they may sound that way to you
because your rational self tells you so, in spite of the evidence of
your ears :-)


If you prefer to think that LP's possess some mystical properties for
capturing the sound it is your choice.

I don't think that it's "mystical" at all, but whatever.

You are entitled to it. It is
your right. Bit remember - it makes you an easy catch for snake oil
salesmen. You know high end analog equipment is still expensive.

On my side I stopped worrying about religious issues (LP vs. CD) long
time ago.

I have pretty much done the same.

As a rational person I believe that the elegance and
simplicity of technology helps to get better sound. LP's as a
transfer media are horribly complex and unreliable technically. Surface
noise, distortion, degradation after each play, you name it. Being
mathematician by training I understand all information issues involved.
And believe me LP does not hold the candle to CD as an information
storage media. So I am all for CD's.

Being a musician by training, I understand that analogue often lets
recorded performances sound more like what I hear everyday from the real
violins, guitars, trumpets, etc. that I hear every day.

But of course if you like your music served from LP's it is your
choice. Just don't pretend that there is anything beyond your
personal preference. It drives people who really understand technical
issues mad. (Not me :-)

I note in your post that the "realness" goal of home audio is not
mentioned. Perhaps we just have different goals.

I am amused.)

As am I :-)


Happy LP listening!
" " CD " " :-)

vlad

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:34:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:


I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never
argued against this.

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to
sound a little like objectivists. And, as Martha might
say, that is a good thing. Beware of assimilation. Fear
the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone
else gets capitals and I don't.

Paul, anything that puts you into a different category than Morein would be
a good thing.

And Robert has done exactly what to earn such condemnation?

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:13:38 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Jenn said:

Blind tests were invented specifically for the purpose of eliminating
this kind of information.

I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never argued against
this.

Have you ever asked vladborg how many dbts he has undertaken for his own
personal purchases to use in his home system?

No, but it's a good question.

I'm still sitting here stunned that a person actually confessed to, on
more than one occasion, mistaking the sound of a stereo system for an
actual instrument. I honestly didn't think that such a thing was
possible. I wonder if he is also fooled by synthed instrument sounds.

Actually, there's a famous lousdpeaker demo done decades ago, where
a system was set up onstage along with a real musician, both behind a screen,
and people claimed not tobe able to tell them apart.

Musicians. It wasn't that people couldn't 'tell them apart", it was
that people thought that the musicians that were miming to the music
were playing, instead of the AR speakers behind the screen.

It was a cute parlor trick done in a hall that was probably only a
step up from a gymnasium at a time where "high-end" systems had only
been heard by a handful of people (relatively speaking, of course). It
also moved a lot of those AR speakers. Of course, nobody would claim
that AR speakers at the time could reproduce perfectly the sound of a
string quartet, right? chuckle

I'm sure that people watching the first TV images were astounded by
the "realism" as well.

Maybe Arny knows more about this -- I've seen reference to it several
times.

AR. Villchur.

(Btw, as any good audiophile would say,
maybe you've just never heard a *really* hi-end system, Jenn ; )

I'd guess that the Rochester Symphony in Eastman Hall would qualify,
especially when conducted by Fennell.

Jenn wrote:
....


Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc. :-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

Vlad, you're totally misunderstanding the posts. The question from the
OP was: "Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?" The question is not, "Does knowing the identity of a device
affect one's PERCEPTION of the sound quality." Obviously, the ACTUAL
SOUND of a thing doesn't change when you open your eyes, right? The
PERCEPTION might change, not the ACTUAL SOUND.

Jenn,

I am glad we understand each other. So next time when you will be
"stunned" by the liveliness of the sound from LP, just imagine for
a second that may be it is not the sound but your brain. Your brain
intervenes and creates certain perception affected by the known
identity of the source :-).

And next time you listen to CDs and marvel at the accuracy of the
instrumental timbres, remember that they may sound that way to you
because your rational self tells you so, in spite of the evidence of
your ears :-)


If you prefer to think that LP's possess some mystical properties for
capturing the sound it is your choice.

I don't think that it's "mystical" at all, but whatever.

You are entitled to it. It is
your right. Bit remember - it makes you an easy catch for snake oil
salesmen. You know high end analog equipment is still expensive.

On my side I stopped worrying about religious issues (LP vs. CD) long
time ago.

I have pretty much done the same.

As a rational person I believe that the elegance and
simplicity of technology helps to get better sound. LP's as a
transfer media are horribly complex and unreliable technically. Surface
noise, distortion, degradation after each play, you name it. Being
mathematician by training I understand all information issues involved.
And believe me LP does not hold the candle to CD as an information
storage media. So I am all for CD's.

Being a musician by training, I understand that analogue often lets
recorded performances sound more like what I hear everyday from the real
violins, guitars, trumpets, etc. that I hear every day.

But of course if you like your music served from LP's it is your
choice. Just don't pretend that there is anything beyond your
personal preference. It drives people who really understand technical
issues mad. (Not me :-)

I note in your post that the "realness" goal of home audio is not
mentioned. Perhaps we just have different goals.


Oh, 'realness', of course. My point of view is that realness is an
object of religious faith. I am not a religious phanatic - audiophiliac
I am concerned first of all with faithful reproduction of the signal on
the master tape. For instance if clarinets sound like cardboards on a
master tape then I expect them to sound like cardboards on CD/LP. To me
this is "realness". If LP makes them "livelier" it is not good
for me. And I will not keep CD responsible for bad sound on master
tape.

From this point of view LP with all distortions does not hold the
candle to CD as an accurate media.

You probably expect LP to serve as an "enhancer" of the sound. Do
you?
So, I spelled my goals. What are yours?

Vlad

PS. I omitted artistic qualities from discussion intentionally. To me
technical and artistic issues are separate. I grew up on Bruno
Walter's Beethoven recordings mutilated on LP by Melodia.

I am amused.)

As am I :-)


Happy LP listening!
" " CD " " :-)

vlad

In article . com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
....


Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly. Is not it obvious that
electronic equipment works the same way, does not matter if you know
identity or not? I am surprised that you cannot figure it out for
yourself. I assumed it as an obvious fact.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely affected by
your
knowledge of the equipment identity. The brand of this equipment will
affect your perception. Technology will affect it. (You are an LP
proponent, are not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP
you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike, authentic, etc.
:-)

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love Bruckner
music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it was 3rd with Bavarian
Orchestra, Eugene Jochum conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright
yellow label. Since then his music creates in me images of yellow
color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by identity of the
source.

Huppy LP listening

vlad

Vlad, you're totally misunderstanding the posts. The question from the
OP was: "Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?" The question is not, "Does knowing the identity of a device
affect one's PERCEPTION of the sound quality." Obviously, the ACTUAL
SOUND of a thing doesn't change when you open your eyes, right? The
PERCEPTION might change, not the ACTUAL SOUND.

Jenn,

I am glad we understand each other. So next time when you will be
"stunned" by the liveliness of the sound from LP, just imagine for
a second that may be it is not the sound but your brain. Your brain
intervenes and creates certain perception affected by the known
identity of the source :-).

And next time you listen to CDs and marvel at the accuracy of the
instrumental timbres, remember that they may sound that way to you
because your rational self tells you so, in spite of the evidence of
your ears :-)


If you prefer to think that LP's possess some mystical properties for
capturing the sound it is your choice.

I don't think that it's "mystical" at all, but whatever.

You are entitled to it. It is
your right. Bit remember - it makes you an easy catch for snake oil
salesmen. You know high end analog equipment is still expensive.

On my side I stopped worrying about religious issues (LP vs. CD) long
time ago.

I have pretty much done the same.

As a rational person I believe that the elegance and
simplicity of technology helps to get better sound. LP's as a
transfer media are horribly complex and unreliable technically. Surface
noise, distortion, degradation after each play, you name it. Being
mathematician by training I understand all information issues involved.
And believe me LP does not hold the candle to CD as an information
storage media. So I am all for CD's.

Being a musician by training, I understand that analogue often lets
recorded performances sound more like what I hear everyday from the real
violins, guitars, trumpets, etc. that I hear every day.

But of course if you like your music served from LP's it is your
choice. Just don't pretend that there is anything beyond your
personal preference. It drives people who really understand technical
issues mad. (Not me :-)

I note in your post that the "realness" goal of home audio is not
mentioned. Perhaps we just have different goals.


Oh, 'realness', of course. My point of view is that realness is an
object of religious faith. I am not a religious phanatic - audiophiliac
I am concerned first of all with faithful reproduction of the signal on
the master tape. For instance if clarinets sound like cardboards on a
master tape then I expect them to sound like cardboards on CD/LP. To me
this is "realness". If LP makes them "livelier" it is not good
for me. And I will not keep CD responsible for bad sound on master
tape.

From this point of view LP with all distortions does not hold the
candle to CD as an accurate media.

You probably expect LP to serve as an "enhancer" of the sound. Do
you?
So, I spelled my goals. What are yours?

I'll be happy to, again. And I believe that this will spell out the
differences between my "adversaries" and me. You strive for
faithfulness to the original signal. I think that this is a fine and
nobel goal. I can fully understand that part of this hobby, and I'm
sure that it's a fun way participate in the home audio hobby. My goal
is different. I want my system/recordings to do whatever it needs to do
to as closely as possible recreate the experience of hearing live
acoustic music. Hearing such music is how I spend my life. Some things
are particularly irritating to me as they stray away from that ideal,
the most important of which are the colors or timbres of the instruments
and voices. Less important to me is much of the concept of "imaging".
In actual concert situations, the soundstage is less specific in the
imaging department than are some stereo systems, so I worry little about
that. I don't care what it is that causes the best sense of realism.
If it's something that is added to the signal, fine. If it is something
that is subtracted, fine; I don't care. Some CDs are so good at most of
my requirements that I enjoy them very much. So far in my experience,
the upper orchestral string sound bothers me on every CD that I've
heard. The upper string sound also bothers me on the majority of LPs.
But on some LPs, to my ears, the string sound is much better than it is
on any CD. I treasure those recordings. Why do those LPs allow the
recorded string sound to be more real to me? I have no idea. Some
early CD sound was absolutely painful (for whatever reason). I don't
find it painful anymore for the most part, to me, something is missing
in the way that the sound STOPS in the upper frequencies on all CDs that
I've heard. In the music business, when we describe a tone as "sweet"
it usually has to do with how the high frequencies decay. Carnegie Hall
sounds "sweet". Avery Fisher Hall does not. CD sound is not sweet (to
me) because this unnatural upper frequency decay "dries out" the sound,
and in some recordings, make it seem like the upper frequencies are
coming from another acoustic space than is the rest of the sound. This
is VERY distracting to me.

So, the bottom line for me is a sense of realism. What good does it do
me if the clarinets on the master tape (and therefore the CD, possibly)
sound like cardboard if that's how it also sounds in my home? Any way
you look at it, that would spell lack of enjoyment. Again, I can
totally appreciate the sense of accomplishment at having your system
sound like cardboard as well if your goal is "accuracy". My goals are
simply different than that.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Now imagine you are a reviewer for Stereophile. How
often would
you like it demonstrated that you *probably* (remember,
it's
all statistical) didn't hear what you thought you heard?
Can you imagine Mikey Fremer's blood pressure after a
couple
of those experiences?

To appreciate this fully, you have to experience Mikey Fremer in all his
hysterical glory, up front and personal, as I did at the HE2005 debate last
year. I'm sure that as a child, his face went blue many times, from holding
his breath until he got his way.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 07:34:50 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:


I pretty much agree with all of the above; I've never
argued against this.

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to
sound a little like objectivists. And, as Martha might
say, that is a good thing. Beware of assimilation.
Fear the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone
else gets capitals and I don't.

Paul, anything that puts you into a different category
than Morein would be a good thing.

And Robert has done exactly what to earn such
condemnation?

If you have to ask, you can't appreciate the answer.

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly.

You missed the poorly-infored part.

But, I'm glad to see that someone else around here can call a spade a spade.

Is not it obvious
that electronic equipment works the same way, does not
matter if you know identity or not?

Many seem to fail to undertstand all of the implications of this fact.

I am surprised that
you cannot figure it out for yourself. I assumed it as an
obvious fact.

There are many things that are obvious to many, but that escape Jenn's
understanding, even when it is patiently explained to her. It is well known
that facts cannot overcome high, pathological levels of hysteria.

What I exactly meant that you perception is definitely
affected by your knowledge of the equipment identity. The
brand of this equipment will affect your perception.
Technology will affect it. (You are an LP proponent, are
not you?) It means that when you hear sound from LP you
have an uncontrolled urge to pronounce it lifelike,
authentic, etc. :-)

Well stated. It is learned behavior. It's something like certain forms of
"speaking in tongues", for example. Instead of speaking incoherently at
Christian religious services, LP bigots demonstrate a certain kind of
"speaking in tongues (about the superiority of LPs)" at Golden-Eared
audiophile religous services.

Other Golden Ear Audiophile "holy rites" include speaking with strange
tongues about certain speaker cables and perpetrators of technical bogosity
like Curl and Bedini.

As an example from my own past I can tell you that I love
Bruckner music. The first time I heard his symphony ( it
was 3rd with Bavarian Orchestra, Eugene Jochum
conducting) from DGG. The LP had a bright yellow label.
Since then his music creates in me images of yellow color
flowing in the air. I know that I was affected by
identity of the source.

Interesting.

Huppy LP listening

Indeed.

On 23 Feb 2006 05:34:42 -0800, "124"
wrote:

paul packer wrote:

On 22 Feb 2006 05:39:21 -0800, "124"
wrote:

You, paul packer, Robert, and Paul B are beginning to sound a little
like objectivists. And, as Martha might say, that is a good thing.
Beware of assimilation. Fear the hive.

I doubt it, but really I just want to know why everyone else gets
capitals and I don't.

Did you mention in a fairly recent post that you do not put much faith
in fancy wires?

Absolutely. I've never heard the slightest difference in wires.
Perhaps in the finest systems a difference can just be discerned, but
that doesn't justify the absurd prices. Inarguable rip-off.

I forgot your exact words, but George warned you of
becoming assimilated.

George won't accept that I straddle the divide and therefore don't
come under his jurisdiction. :-)

Look, there's so much absurd hype in the high end market that any
half-rational person has to laugh. On the other hand it's just as
laughable to suggest that, say, a Marantz PM4400 will sound as good
as a Marantz PM11S1 whatever the measurements. To most people the
more ambitious amp will sound better. If that weren't the case, the
high end market would have withered away long ago, and we'd all have
budget amps, CD players etc. I don't see how that can be denied by
anyone with any real listening experience. Whether the sound
difference is worth the difference in price is another matter. If the
objectivists were debating that aspect, instead of trying to convince
us that day is night, I'd find the whole discussion much more
interesting.

As for the capitals, on the news reader that I
am using, your name comes out in lower case. I thought you preferred it
this way. Sorry, Paul. In the future, capitals only. Incidentally,
did you set your e-mail client to display your name in lower case?

Yep.

"paul packer" wrote in message



Look, there's so much absurd hype in the high end market
that any half-rational person has to laugh. On the other
hand it's just as laughable to suggest that, say, a
Marantz PM4400 will sound as good as a Marantz PM11S1
whatever the measurements.

Hmm, the PM4400 has what 30 wpc? News flash this it not one of those
congenitally underpowered tubed amps.

OTOH it would probably raise a lot of eyebrows if it turned out that nobody
could hear the difference between the $4K PM11S1 100 wpc and the amplifier
section of a $79 100 wpc stereo receiver from Best Buy.

To most people the more ambitious amp will sound better.

In a sighted test? Probably yes.

If that weren't the case, the high end market would have withered away
long ago,

Which it slowly seems to be doing.


and we'd all have budget amps, CD players etc.

Actually, a lot of money that might go into high end audio is no doubt going
into HDTV.

I don't see how that can be denied by anyone with any real
listening experience.


That would be listening and seeing experience. Strip away the snazzy front
panels and hype and what do you have?

Whether the sound difference is
worth the difference in price is another matter.

Whether there is any difference in sound at all is a good question.

The Marantz PM-11S1 reminds me of some Radio history that most have
forgotten.

You have to remember that in the 1930s the equivalent of high end audio was
high end radio. For a while, the public perceived that the number of tubes
in a radio was an indicator of quality. More tubes, better reception and
sound - it seems logical right? Manufacturers responded by building radios
with more tubes than I could imagine had I not seen some real-world
examples. How about an AM-only radio with 40 tubes?


If the objectivists were debating that aspect, instead of trying
to convince us that day is night, I'd find the whole
discussion much more interesting.

Why debate, why not listen?

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:


vlad

Vlad, you're totally misunderstanding the posts. The question from the
OP was: "Does knowing the identity of a device affect the sound
quality?" The question is not, "Does knowing the identity of a device
affect one's PERCEPTION of the sound quality." Obviously, the ACTUAL
SOUND of a thing doesn't change when you open your eyes, right? The
PERCEPTION might change, not the ACTUAL SOUND.

I would proffer that there is no 'actual sound'. The actuality is sound
waves.
The 'sound" is what is perceived by any particular individual. with one's
receptors
(ears) and the processor (brain). The same set of waves may sound similar,
yet
somewhat different, to any multitude of people.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

paul packer said:

I forgot your exact words, but George warned you of
becoming assimilated.

George won't accept that I straddle the divide and therefore don't
come under his jurisdiction. :-)

You don't straddle the divide, paulie. You're completely Normal.

The "divide" that exercises me is not the one between so-called
"objectivists" and "subjectivists". In reality, there are no objectivists
because everybody who spends any time and money on a system inevitably
talks about improving its performance. And that notion is entirely
subjective.

There is another divide, a real one, between humans and Them. I'm sure you
know what I mean. They pretend to "objectivism" but in reality, They want
to eradicate equipment that scares Them. This is the assimilation program
that energizes Them. One characteristic by which you can identify an Audio
'Borg is the inability to accept that a stated opinion or preference by a
Normal is not a "claim". They can't tell the difference.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

paul packer said:

I forgot your exact words, but George warned you of
becoming assimilated.

George won't accept that I straddle the divide and
therefore don't come under his jurisdiction. :-)

You don't straddle the divide, paulie. You're completely
Normal.

The "divide" that exercises me is not the one between
so-called "objectivists" and "subjectivists". In reality,
there are no objectivists because everybody who spends
any time and money on a system inevitably talks about
improving its performance. And that notion is entirely
subjective.

Wrong. Performance is commonly evaluated by humans using both subjective and
objective means.

There is another divide, a real one, between humans and
Them. I'm sure you know what I mean. They pretend to
"objectivism" but in reality, They want to eradicate
equipment that scares Them.

How can one be scared of equipment that is a functional joke?

This is the assimilation program that energizes Them. One characteristic
by which
you can identify an Audio 'Borg is the inability to
accept that a stated opinion or preference by a Normal is
not a "claim". They can't tell the difference.

George is just ****ed because he knows that a preference or opinion has a
natural limit of just the person with the preference or opinion. People talk
about their opinions for a number of reasons - but mainly it is to get
validation or to assert themselves on others.

For a good example of someone who wants to assert themselves on others at
any cost to their personal integrity - see George's Usenet career. But, the
one price he cannot afford to pay is to correctly identify who he really is
in the real world. Hence the endless sockpuppetry.

paul packer wrote:

Actually that's the part I don't get at all. Why should the sight of
the equipment affect one's audible perception of it?

If the sight of the equipment does affect one's audible perception of
it, would your views on audio change?

--124

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly.

You missed the poorly-infored part.
snip

1. He also missed the "unreasonable" part. He was saying that I was
claiming something that I didn't say.
2. What does "informed" have to do with the way something SOUNDS?

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly.

You missed the poorly-informed part.
snip

1. He also missed the "unreasonable" part.

Yawn.

2. What does "informed" have to do with the way
something SOUNDS?

So which is it Jenn? Do you not believe in listener training, or don't you
believe that listener training can improve the sensitivity and reliability
of listener, or don't you think taht training someone is imforming them?

Or do you have some other non-answer?

Jenn said to Mr. ****:

You missed the poorly-infored[sic] part.

2. What does "informed" have to do with the way something SOUNDS?

The Krooborg has previously admitted that for him, actually listening to a
system is a waste of time. His idea of "informed" is reading spec sheets
and somebody else's test results, and then pretending to do a DBT of
equipment not in his possession.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

Jenn,

you are unreasonable to put it mildly.

You missed the poorly-informed part.
snip

1. He also missed the "unreasonable" part.

Yawn.

You snipped (without saying that you did so) my explanation of the
sentence, which takes it out of context. Yawn.

2. What does "informed" have to do with the way
something SOUNDS?

So which is it Jenn? Do you not believe in listener training, or don't you
believe that listener training can improve the sensitivity and reliability
of listener, or don't you think taht training someone is imforming them?
snip lame attempt at insult

In the context of the discussion we have been having (i.e. the way that
you have used the word "inform" earlier), no, training is not informing.
You have said that I've "been informed" here that it's impossible for
LPs to sound good, due to science. I'm saying that "information" of
that type has NOTHING to do with the sound.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


2. What does "informed" have to do with the way
something SOUNDS?

So which is it Jenn? Do you not believe in listener
training, or don't you believe that listener training
can improve the sensitivity and reliability of listener,
or don't you think taht training someone is imforming
them?

In the context of the discussion we have been having
(i.e. the way that you have used the word "inform"
earlier), no, training is not informing.

A totally unreasonable statement. End of discussion.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


2. What does "informed" have to do with the way
something SOUNDS?

So which is it Jenn? Do you not believe in listener
training, or don't you believe that listener training
can improve the sensitivity and reliability of listener,
or don't you think taht training someone is imforming
them?

In the context of the discussion we have been having
(i.e. the way that you have used the word "inform"
earlier), no, training is not informing.

A totally unreasonable statement. End of discussion.

LOL Surrender accepted.