Hush, Cal.
I was hoping one of the objectionables would ask where the X in the second example was. 😉
I was hoping one of the objectionables would ask where the X in the second example was. 😉
Andy Graddon said:
C) If nothing unusual jumps out at me when I examine his setup, I do a quick check of frequency response and stability. If that shows nothing unusual, I give it a quick listen. If that shows nothing unusual, I tell the listener that I'll be happy to put more of my sadly-limited time in when he actually has done some verification of his perception. Life's too short.
Andy Graddon said:
why should I want confirmation? It's a fact that cables don't make any difference... grow up..
AJinFLA asked: The worlds best preamp? As defined by????
Do you always deliberately try to be difficult AJ just to be difficult or is it just an innate part of your being you? If you took the time to read slowly you'd have realized I specifically stated when John Curl set out to make the world's "best" preamp. So the very obvious answer to your question to anyone but you would be; it was the world's "best" preamp defined by how John Curl knew how to make a preamp, period. I never stated he succeeded in making the world's best preamp did I? I said he set out to make it the best ---{although many people believe it one of the world's best if not the best} There's a tremendous difference between what I actually said and what you implied I said.
=============================================
Next you come to the assinine conclusion that somehow we have irrefutable proof of something just because John Curl gave things to Bob Crump and Carl Thompson? Are all objectivists this quick to jump to erroneous conclusions? The only real conclusions that can be drawn from John Curl's action is #1) He believes circuit layout influences an audio components sound and #2) He believed Carl Thompson is better at circuit layout than he is.
=============================================
Next you sarcastically asked: Subjectivist don't require much do they? Well AJ actually we require objectivists attempt to argue against what we actually said and not their twisted version of what we said!
=============================================
Finally as a FYI type of thing, your belief that my whole post above is also known as appeal to authority is a mistake!
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that's committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. Being a circuit and audio component designer by trade John Curl IS a indeed a legitimate authority on that subject!
An appeal to authority would have been if I claimed something like this; as a circuit and audio component designer by trade John Curl's opinion on speakers is more credible than yours or mine. Now do you understand wat an appeal to authority actually is?
Believe it or not AJ people can discuss differening POVs without having to berating, disparaging or mocking the other person. You should try it sometime. It's called good manners...
Do you always deliberately try to be difficult AJ just to be difficult or is it just an innate part of your being you? If you took the time to read slowly you'd have realized I specifically stated when John Curl set out to make the world's "best" preamp. So the very obvious answer to your question to anyone but you would be; it was the world's "best" preamp defined by how John Curl knew how to make a preamp, period. I never stated he succeeded in making the world's best preamp did I? I said he set out to make it the best ---{although many people believe it one of the world's best if not the best} There's a tremendous difference between what I actually said and what you implied I said.
=============================================
Next you come to the assinine conclusion that somehow we have irrefutable proof of something just because John Curl gave things to Bob Crump and Carl Thompson? Are all objectivists this quick to jump to erroneous conclusions? The only real conclusions that can be drawn from John Curl's action is #1) He believes circuit layout influences an audio components sound and #2) He believed Carl Thompson is better at circuit layout than he is.
=============================================
Next you sarcastically asked: Subjectivist don't require much do they? Well AJ actually we require objectivists attempt to argue against what we actually said and not their twisted version of what we said!
=============================================
Finally as a FYI type of thing, your belief that my whole post above is also known as appeal to authority is a mistake!
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy that's committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. Being a circuit and audio component designer by trade John Curl IS a indeed a legitimate authority on that subject!
An appeal to authority would have been if I claimed something like this; as a circuit and audio component designer by trade John Curl's opinion on speakers is more credible than yours or mine. Now do you understand wat an appeal to authority actually is?
Believe it or not AJ people can discuss differening POVs without having to berating, disparaging or mocking the other person. You should try it sometime. It's called good manners...
from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjectivistAndre Visser said:
Quote.
a. The doctrine that all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states.
b. A theory or doctrine that emphasizes the subjective elements in experience.
OK you are not 'a' as you believe in measurements. If 'b' fits your beliefs I would say, as far as HiFi goes, you are making a big mistake, as measurements are more sensitive than your senses.
The die hard subjectivist (not you) trusts their ears over everything else, "if I hear it, it exists." So my question is when they hear nothing in a blind test why don't they say "I can't hear it, it doesn't exist"?
Surely you can't have it both ways?
😀
Conrad Hoffman said:
That's an interesting story Conrad. But that analysis is only valid based on physics as we know it now. Remember, science doesn't know everything (especially things related to Subjectivist audio). For instance, what if Santa wasn't human and was instead an audiophile? Then the laws of physics (or psychology) wouldn't apply to him. Plus, even if he claimed to be able to deliver presents to every good christian kid in the world, he wouldn't have to prove anything to anyone who doubted and dared to ask him.
cheers,
AJ
Actually no, an appeal to authority is when you draw an absolute conclusion based on what someone else said even if they are an expert. Being an expert does not make them right, it does raise the probability though. This preamp could be the cheapest most heavily flawed unit in the world, your argument offered no proof otherwise, we could assume however that since several intelligent and experienced people designed it with a goal of perfection that it is a very nice unit. Unfortunately your argument implies more than it supports.
Aj, sorry but a type 1 appeal to authority would be if tubeguy claimed to be the expert and made assertions about the preamp. He used the type 2 style where he discussed what the authorities are doing, he just didn't provide any evidence that they achieved their goals, which I believe is what you are responding to.
Aj makes a statement and you group all of us together with one erroneous conclusion😀 I think Aj is responding to your implied conclusions about this preamp, you've almost deified (couldn't think of a less sarcastic term) these guys and are supporting work that I bet you have never even heard. By talking about this preamp being so great and their expertise being so great you are implying that you agree, objectivists would call that an erroneous conclusion.
You keep chastising people for this and you also keep doing it, words like asinine don't exactly sound like good manners, neither does your mocking and sarcastic tone. You can't keep complaining about how people talk to you while you keep doing the exact same thing.
It is my opinion that he asked valid questions which you responded to in an emotional and inappropriate manner. Your post used words like good cables, good designs, high quality ____, good design principles, good dielectric and significant role, etc. These are all subjective terms and carry no weight with people who try and interpret evidence in an objective fashion.
Guys, I'm serious, I really think you need to stop discussing each other and discuss something related to cables and wire. Or listening tests related to cables and wire. Now I'm participating here, so I won't moderate officially, but I suspect someone who isn't involved may step in if we can't keep things to the technical instead of the personal.
Just my opinion as a member, not a mod.
Just my opinion as a member, not a mod.
Andy in your ABX question I think your point is that taking the cable out of its context will adversely affect any test. So yes I want confirmation of these heard differences, where do we go from here?
fredex said:
Thanks for seeing the point...
I think Alan was on the right track. He arranged an unsighted AB test on the gear in question, in the location in question, and was apparently able to get 100%, (I don't have time to go back and find and re-read that part of the thread at the moment)
As tubeguy says, to make us subjectionables happy about result, the listener must have a pretty intimate knowledge of the system under test, and the system includes the room, as we all know.
My contention is that, if there was a difference heard and we wish to ABX test it, then altering any part of the system (except the component under question) sorta makes any result thus obtained pretty meaningless.
Setting up ABX tests in halls, special rooms etc on unknown gear in an unknown room etc seems a pretty good way of achieving a null result, as we have all seen.
Measurements aren't going to tell us much either, because as AJ and R clearly stated, (after a bit of tooth pulling), it is extremely difficult to make valid measurements at listening distance.
For an interconnect or a speaker cable, measurement at the terminals (same amplifier and speaker) will easily show if there is a difference. insisting on listening position measurements is a strawman.Andy Graddon said:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index1.html
😀 I like the measurements....
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
I dare the subjectivists to try and wriggle out of this one
😀
Of course you ignored it when I brought it up so lets see if that happens again.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
I dare the subjectivists to try and wriggle out of this one
😀
Of course you ignored it when I brought it up so lets see if that happens again.
You posted it before? Sorry.nunayafb said:
I may have missed it as I've guffawed huge amounts of popcorn out onto the screen reading this thread. Mkes it hard to read sometimes.
The rabid subjectivists will find it easy to wriggle out of, covered as they are in snake oil.
On these DBTs. I believe that correctly conducted DBTs tell us the whole truth about audibility.
I think those of you with subjectist beliefs confuse the existence of an effect with its audibility.
Objectivists are not saying that because you can't hear it it doesn't exist, it is easy to measure effects we can't hear.
Subjectivists should embrace DBTs because it relies exclusively on the very things that subjectivists trust most... their EARS.
I think those of you with subjectist beliefs confuse the existence of an effect with its audibility.
Objectivists are not saying that because you can't hear it it doesn't exist, it is easy to measure effects we can't hear.
Subjectivists should embrace DBTs because it relies exclusively on the very things that subjectivists trust most... their EARS.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.