John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
Joshua_G

Joshua_G

Member
Joined 2008
gomeh.com/
alansawyer said:


More likely it sounds as though you are scared of being shown up for being unable to tell what you proclaim you can.

You can still choose whatever compoinents you like but having an objective base to show you why you are wasting money doesn't seem all that bad really, does it?
Click to expand...


Good for you that you view it this way.
I know what I hear and what I don't.
Also, there is nothing I need to prove to anyone other than myself.
 
Johnloudb

Johnloudb

Member
Joined 2008
I'd like to invite you all, to read about my take on subjective versus objective listening. As we already know our ears are more sensitive to some sounds than others. Audiophiles often claim that extended listening is required in equipment evaluations, and that short term blind testing doesn't work.

Well I developed an ear sensitivity condition and had to learn the Jastreboff model for hearing. And I wrote a paper on the subject and started a thread from where you can download it on my website.

http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage/

And, I started a thread on this here:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138477

I be really grateful if you'd take a look. It's kind of a long paper, but I hope people will read the whole thing instead of scanning it. I just don't think you'll appreciate my point of view, otherwise. Unless you find it boring :eek: then do what you want.

Moderators, I hope you don't me bringing up this again here, since it's on a similar topic being discussed.

Also, I'm not arguing the audibility of cables or caps, just the need for a controlled listening tests that works.
 
S

stinius

Disabled Account
Joined 2008
Johnloudb said:
I'd like to invite you all, to read about my take on subjective versus objective listening. As we already know our ears are more sensitive to some sounds than others. Audiophiles often claim that extended listening is required in equipment evaluations, and that short term blind testing doesn't work.

Well I developed an ear sensitivity condition and had to learn the Jastreboff model for hearing. And I wrote a paper on the subject and started a thread from where you can download it on my website.

http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage/

And, I started a thread on this here:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138477

I be really grateful if you'd take a look. It's kind of a long paper, but I hope people will read the whole thing instead of scanning it. I just don't think you'll appreciate my point of view, otherwise. Unless you find it boring :eek: then do what you want.

Moderators, I hope you don't me bringing up this again here, since it's on a similar topic being discussed.

Also, I'm not arguing the audibility of cables or caps, just the need for a controlled listening tests that works.
Click to expand...

Hi John

I have only read a few pages now, but have downloaded the pdf-file and will read it all.
BTW we have the same locks.

Cheers
Stinius
 
G

GRollins

Member
Joined 2001
SY said:


Or I can not worry about people lying about what I say and think. Probably the best course.
Click to expand...


And this is precisely why I used the word 'tragic' when describing SY's predicament. It doesn't have to be this way. He said what he said in 2005 (which you can compare word for word via the link kindly provided by another poster--thus proving that I did not edit or otherwise molest his post). Now he's calling me a liar. Repeatedly. Over something he said.
Judge for yourselves.
The deeper issue here--which SY, like Scott Wurcer, faces--is that their belief system does not allow them to explore anything that might undermine that belief system. This is exactly the sort of problem that led me to coin the phrase "science as religion." When a belief system does not allow you to question its central tenets, it is a religion; no longer science.
Don't believe me? Ask a fundamentalist Christian why the accounts of the Resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contradict one another (read all four carefully, take detailed notes--exactly who discovered Christ had risen?, were there men...or angels?, was the stone rolled away...or not? Etc.). Then stand back...waaaaay back. 'Cause if you ain't got the Resurrection, you're busted back to the Old Testament, and you just became a Jew. (Which...trust me on this...don't go over well here in the Bible Belt.)
(Don't complain to me. I didn't write the Christian Bible. I just read the thing with my eyes open.)
Don't believe me? Ask a Measurements-Are-Everything disciple why some things just don't fit into their model of audio. Then stand back.
The irony being that science, by definition, is supposed to be open to new ideas. If it isn't, then it's on the road to failure, and that ain't good, 'cuz we need science now more than ever.
It's not whether silver does or does not sound this way or that when compared to copper (I honestly have no opinion [the only intellectually honest position, as I've never done a good comparison]). No, the problem is more subtle--and more powerful--than that. SY (like Scott) finds himself in a position where he cannot and will not follow up on what his ears told him. Their belief system prohibits it. That prohibition is the crux of the problem. They reflexively discredit anything that doesn't fit within their view of the universe--even if it's their own, personal experience.
SY, in an unguarded moment, wrote a post that he (count on it) heartily regrets today. Scott, too, finds himself at the very edge of a precipice. One slip, and he's over the edge into an abyss where nothing makes any sense...unless you admit that we don't know everything. And that is unacceptable. Period. That loss of control over what they view as an orderly, predictable universe is anathema to them.
And if that ain't tragic, in the old-fashioned Shakespearean sense of tragedy, then we're all in a heap of trouble.

Grey

P.S.: SY, contrary to what you feel at this moment, I don't hate you. I'm not even mad at you. I'll even offer another 'out.' Say you misspoke (hey, it worked for Hillary). Say that the post may say what it says, but your feelings about the matter weren't "X" at all, they were "Y." Or "Z." Or any other letter in the alphabet, for that matter. And that you simply mis-typed.
P.P.S.: Fascinating studies being done wherein the experimenter shows self-described Republicans and Democrats a photograph of a face digitally blurred to render the expression unreadable. Republicans are consistently more likely to read the expression as threatening than Democrats. I have to wonder how measurements-are-everything folks would fare on such a test. Does an ambiguous measurement seem threatening?
(See Scientific American 1/09, p31A and other places as well--this is at least the third time I've seen reports of similar experiments.)
P.P.P.S.: John...and anyone else, for that matter...on p28 of the same issue, they describe a new audio driver made of carbon nanotubes. Now, if that ain't cool, I don't know what is. Sign me up!
 
G

GK

Disabled Account
Joined 2006
GRollins said:



And this is precisely why I used the word 'tragic' when describing SY's predicament. It doesn't have to be this way. He said what he said in 2005 (which you can compare word for word via the link kindly provided by another poster--thus proving that I did not edit or otherwise molest his post). Now he's calling me a liar. Repeatedly. Over something he said.
Judge for yourselves.
The deeper issue here--which SY, like Scott Wurcer, faces--is that their belief system does not allow them to explore anything that might undermine that belief system. This is exactly the sort of problem that led me to coin the phrase "science as religion." When a belief system does not allow you to question its central tenets, it is a religion; no longer science.
Don't believe me? Ask a fundamentalist Christian why the accounts of the Resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contradict one another (read all four carefully, take detailed notes--exactly who discovered Christ had risen?, were there men...or angels?, was the stone rolled away...or not? Etc.). Then stand back...waaaaay back. 'Cause if you ain't got the Resurrection, you're busted back to the Old Testament, and you just became a Jew. (Which...trust me on this...don't go over well here in the Bible Belt.)
(Don't complain to me. I didn't write the Christian Bible. I just read the thing with my eyes open.)
Don't believe me? Ask a Measurements-Are-Everything disciple why some things just don't fit into their model of audio. Then stand back.
The irony being that science, by definition, is supposed to be open to new ideas. If it isn't, then it's on the road to failure, and that ain't good, 'cuz we need science now more than ever.
It's not whether silver does or does not sound this way or that when compared to copper (I honestly have no opinion [the only intellectually honest position, as I've never done a good comparison]). No, the problem is more subtle--and more powerful--than that. SY (like Scott) finds himself in a position where he cannot and will not follow up on what his ears told him. Their belief system prohibits it. That prohibition is the crux of the problem. They reflexively discredit anything that doesn't fit within their view of the universe--even if it's their own, personal experience.
SY, in an unguarded moment, wrote a post that he (count on it) heartily regrets today. Scott, too, finds himself at the very edge of a precipice. One slip, and he's over the edge into an abyss where nothing makes any sense...unless you admit that we don't know everything. And that is unacceptable. Period. That loss of control over what they view as an orderly, predictable universe is anathema to them.
And if that ain't tragic, in the old-fashioned Shakespearean sense of tragedy, then we're all in a heap of trouble.

Grey

P.S.: SY, contrary to what you feel at this moment, I don't hate you. I'm not even mad at you. I'll even offer another 'out.' Say you misspoke (hey, it worked for Hillary). Say that the post may say what it says, but your feelings about the matter weren't "X" at all, they were "Y." Or "Z." Or any other letter in the alphabet, for that matter. And that you simply mis-typed.
P.P.S.: Fascinating studies being done wherein the experimenter shows self-described Republicans and Democrats a photograph of a face digitally blurred to render the expression unreadable. Republicans are consistently more likely to read the expression as threatening than Democrats. I have to wonder how measurements-are-everything folks would fare on such a test. Does an ambiguous measurement seem threatening?
(See Scientific American 1/09, p31A and other places as well--this is at least the third time I've seen reports of similar experiments.)
P.P.P.S.: John...and anyone else, for that matter...on p28 of the same issue, they describe a new audio driver made of carbon nanotubes. Now, if that ain't cool, I don't know what is. Sign me up!
Click to expand...


Far out. And I thought I had a flatulence problem.
 
Joshua_G

Joshua_G

Member
Joined 2008
gomeh.com/
Well said, Grey.

BTW, for almost 40 years I'm amazed by the fact that so many people use science (or, rather, "science") as a religion.

John, a common ground? Like that we all are human? And as human, err?
I'll second that.

However, when others are trying to tell me that I don't actually hear what I actually hear – sorry, I cannot buy it. I follow no guide other than my own experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom