Indeed he does play the victim card.
He could publish anything he wants online on his own website if he really wanted to.
Subjective is the key word and if you don't know what it is you are looking for then you have free reign to make it up. That's what snake oil people do.
If ABX, DBT or even SBT can't show conclusive differences then what you are trying to test for doesn't exist except in your mind. If looking at the $100,000 amp is the only way you can tell which amp is playing, then it's sure not worth that $100,000.
...I am so well known in the field of audio design.
I usually make stuff that works better than most of the stuff out there...
Humility, he has not. Even his bravado written here has carefully crafted wording.........."Usually" and "most" a double "Out". Carefully reworded it could say " I sometimes make stuff that works poorly compared to most other stuff"
Undoubtedly the attempt to publish thru AES failed because of the lack of the scientific process. The attraction this individual has towards the "snake oil" theories would seem to me to be indicative of a flawed thought process, seemingly brought out in the particular paper. This "conspiracy" idea is in and of itself indicative and symptomatic of flawed thinking. EG. "Fake Moon landing""JFK CIA assassination" et.al.
_________________________________________________Rick..........
I usually make stuff that works better than most of the stuff out there...
Humility, he has not. Even his bravado written here has carefully crafted wording.........."Usually" and "most" a double "Out". Carefully reworded it could say " I sometimes make stuff that works poorly compared to most other stuff"
Undoubtedly the attempt to publish thru AES failed because of the lack of the scientific process. The attraction this individual has towards the "snake oil" theories would seem to me to be indicative of a flawed thought process, seemingly brought out in the particular paper. This "conspiracy" idea is in and of itself indicative and symptomatic of flawed thinking. EG. "Fake Moon landing""JFK CIA assassination" et.al.
_________________________________________________Rick..........
Anyway shouldn't measurements and such like be on the sound quality vs measurement thread, so us heathens and unbelievers can scoff and ridicule at the pseudo science and stupidity regarding magic cables and other such audio rip offs🙂
And herein lies the problem: Due to their complete refusal to accept correct testing methods the audiophool scene has moved from a science-based subject firmly into the realms of fashion and religion.
It is a lost cause in my opinion.
Audiophools are us! '-) No Charles, we like to do our own 'New Age' brand of audio design. Works most of the time, better than ABX tests.
Neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist be.
$$$$.$$ mains cords don't help the subjectivist cause much IMO.
$$$$.$$ mains cords don't help the subjectivist cause much IMO.
Last edited:
Thing is over the last 20 years or so I have not seen or heard hardly anything worthwhile (or even worth the cash they are asking) come out of the audiophool scene. At the same time there has been plenty coming from the pro side of audio where they do correct testing and at remarkably reasonable prices.
Well Charles, I have not done pro audio in decades. I remember when the Grateful Dead had to change over from tubes to solid state. Even the roadies could hear the downgrade. When I worked with John Meyer almost 40 years ago, I developed a small 'tweeter' power amp that is now on this website as the JC-3 power amp. We compared almost everything solid state at the time, and were disappointed, and so we decided to make an 'improved' amp for frequencies over 4KHz. The only other amp in that time period that could compare in audio quality was the Electrocompaniet, designed by Jan Lohstroh and Matti Otala at Phillips Research.
The Grateful Dead did the same thing: Solid state up to 4KHz, tubes above (Mac 3500).
Of course, today, now that TIM is understood and higher frequency output devices are available, it is easier to make something passable, but not yet for hi end audio.
The Grateful Dead did the same thing: Solid state up to 4KHz, tubes above (Mac 3500).
Of course, today, now that TIM is understood and higher frequency output devices are available, it is easier to make something passable, but not yet for hi end audio.
As one of millions perhaps who have seen a Dead concert(78) with that "Wall-O-sound" thank you John.......... Your efforts from so very long ago were/are appreciated to no end.
_________________________________________________Rick...........
_________________________________________________Rick...........
Thanks Richard, for the comment about the 'Wall of Sound', and even your reminder to me that I can sound awfully arrogant if I am not careful. Sorry, its my upbringing, not my intent. Today, amazingly going through some old inputs on the internet, I found the same accusation on another website, 11 years ago!
By the way, Matti Otala successfully published 320 technical papers in his career. I wonder WHY he could not get into the JAES after a half dozen previous successes under different management of the AES? Could it be that he lost his skills? Check it out sometime, it is available as an AES pre-print, and probably in the IEEE Audio and Acoustics group about the same time.
By the way, Matti Otala successfully published 320 technical papers in his career. I wonder WHY he could not get into the JAES after a half dozen previous successes under different management of the AES? Could it be that he lost his skills? Check it out sometime, it is available as an AES pre-print, and probably in the IEEE Audio and Acoustics group about the same time.
Perhaps because he was wrong? It happens. I worked for a Nobel Laureate who had maybe a thousand published papers, and even he had some rejected. That's how the process works.
Well, that settles that. A name drop with something attributed to him by a third party is much better than actual analysis.
Papers get rejected for several reasons. Being clearly wrong is one of them. Being poorly written is another. Failing to take account of referee's previous comments is a good way to upset an editor. Occasionally a really good paper may be rejected because it is ahead of the curve. Frequently an author may sincerely believe he is ahead of the curve, when he is actually off on his own little tangent. Sometimes it is just bad luck. I would hesitate to assert a conspiracy without some good evidence.
Didn't we cover this topic a few years ago? Was it in this thread or another? Have I seen Groundhog Day?
Didn't we cover this topic a few years ago? Was it in this thread or another? Have I seen Groundhog Day?
This hobby horse has been taken around the track several dozen times. Every once in a while, the jockey needs to be doused with some cold water.
The most humorous lap was when another member here, whose paper was lauded by Stereophile as radically new and important, had it rejected because, as he cheerfully admitted after being asked some sharp questions by his peers, it was mistaken. Most serious researchers deal with rejection by either killing the paper (if it's wrong) or submitting it elsewhere. A few have it published where the fact of being wrong is no impediment (e.g., Stereophile). Others choose to play martyr. Fortunately, the latter two groups are a tiny minority.
Groundhog Day was more boring IMO
How did we manage to reach the situation where a supplier can sell interconnect cable off the reel in one meter lengths with a price tag of $7417.00 per meter plus vat.
I think what that says about human nature is more interesting, but only just.
How did we manage to reach the situation where a supplier can sell interconnect cable off the reel in one meter lengths with a price tag of $7417.00 per meter plus vat.
I think what that says about human nature is more interesting, but only just.
Interesting observation because in the last shootout of small pro studio monitors, our producers faced a wide selection sounding vastly dissimilar and uniformly mediocre. Fortunately it made the one stand out easy to pick. Unless you meant sound reinforcement, which as usually practiced has only 'up' to go.
What makes you think that I am talking about PA systems?
All the very best speakers I have heard were invariably studio monitors, your audiophool fare doesn't even come close with regards to accuracy.
They were all fully active so that does include amplifiers.
That said while speakers sound sometimes dramatically different the differences between amps is minute.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.