What is your point ? Other than really bad behavior. What John said is true from what I knew of her from the times I meet her at the CES . Her ability to tune system was very good . May I inquire as to what your master Degree is in ? May I suggest that you grow some wisdom . Enid was an interesting visionary troubled Soul. The avatar now makes a great deal of sense .
Thanks, Triodethom. I am glad that somebody here actually met Enid Lumley, from the years that she participated in audio. I bought one of her turntables and her Speaker cords (Cardas), still use them, today. However I gave her phono turntable away, because it was so FUSSY! Bought a Linn instead, which I use today. However her turntable sounded GREAT when it was properly set up. She set it up for me a couple of times, but once she was really gone, it would go out of adjustment and ruin my records.
John your welcome. At the time Her finding where to me amazing in that she was able to hear thing with such simple equipment . I can also first hand know the deep sadness of being in a business you love but can not make a living at it. For me I moved on to something that pays well however I have no passion about it. Sorry she passed of lung cancer .
In one sense the key is learning to tune into "problem areas". A simple exercise is to put on your "worst" recording, and once you stop laughing at how bad it is, listen, really listen to what's bad about it. Think not how incompetent the people were who put this rubbish to disk, but of it as a diagnostic tool, telling you where your own system has deficiencies.
If you do that with self-honesty a great deal can be learnt ...
I only mentioned her because I read the story once. I thought it strange to give up audio completely. maybe not so strange considering that I wanted to do it myself a few times LOL but then I stopped and reflected and remembered that I managed to be happy with much inferior systems in the past.
whenever I don't like the sound I think it's the recording. which is sometimes true
whenever I don't like the sound I think it's the recording. which is sometimes true
Some times the visions are signs of a troubled soul but not always. None are so blind as have sight but not vision nor as deaf as those who think they hear but fail to listen . Enid possessed an organic oneness with a system that any one in this hobby if in their right mind would envy. I am not calling her a Saint just some one with a gift that at time was odd and difficult to feel comfortable around . I have missed her writing for a very long time.
The point you miss is this:
Wild claims or not is subjective to your point of view.
'Wild' is your subjectivity.
What was wild in 1875 was the telephone in 1930.
Wild claims and no evidence has zero bearing on you being correct or not.
It's the limits of the Scientific Process, and what it gets wrong. It assumes the only path forward is via itself and rejects all other possibilities.
Let's fine tune my example and predate it a few hundred years to 1500:
If in the year 1500 BC I told you that man would fly in a heavier than air craft you would respond in kind. You might have had me arrested for heresy.
You would have been wrong. You would have always been wrong. You would have been wrong in 1900, 1500, or 5,000 BC. My inability to provide peer-reviewed studies, no evidence, nutty ideas, contradicting evidence - all irrelevant.
You would have been wrong even though the Scientific Process constrained your response.
This is THE major flaw in the Scientific Process and when we listen to a system after we change it in some fashion, we are building upon the known science with what we can hear that cannot be measured.
Soundstage, for example.
We believe, we think, it makes sense, it is likely, that resonance reduction improves soundstage, but there is no way to measure soundstage and link that to any know metric. Soundstage is in our heads.
We need to build based upon what science we know at the moment, and them move forward acknowledging that we do not know much of what remains. Then it moves onto to subjectivity and the non Scientific Process. Tweak, then listen, and tweak again.
The limits of the Scientific Process.
Keep moving those goalposts! If I find examples from 1400 of people speculating about powered flight, will you move 'em again? I have some, you know...
Evidence is easy to get when there's something there. Excuses are easy to make when there isn't. Perhaps the tortured scribblings of a sick individual entertain you somehow (and they certainly made money for some cynical publishers). Perhaps deliberately ignoring the way human minds and senses function is entertaining, but it's not useful.
For me, pity is a more appropriate emotion toward poor Enid.
Evidence is easy to get when there's something there. Excuses are easy to make when there isn't. Perhaps the tortured scribblings of a sick individual entertain you somehow (and they certainly made money for some cynical publishers). Perhaps deliberately ignoring the way human minds and senses function is entertaining, but it's not useful.
For me, pity is a more appropriate emotion toward poor Enid.
is it me or these arguments heavily resemble theological ones?
come on, give us a lecture on epistemology! we need it and crave for it.
Last edited:
So.... you mean that everybody must consider as true something which is in your head?
Sure!... The limits of the Scientific Process are also in your head
oh, the naivety. you think it's a simple phrase most would understand, right?
even if I replace "audio" with "stuff", I don't get what he's about.
I mean, yeah, science is not an all-knowing entity. it's not an entity to begin with. ok, so we got past epistemology 101. but where's the news and why did the guy quote my OP out of context, pretending to not get what it's about?
Last edited:
It often comes down to people's personalities. Some are hard core skeptics, some are 'dreamers', both can either be right or wrong.
Usually, skeptics will slow real breakthroughs, because they demand so much PROOF.
You and your friends cannot just HEAR SOMETHING and have it valid, you have to prove it with a stringent ABX test (or its equivalent) put together by people who don't believe anything that is not proven beyond the ABX results, that are usually NULL.
The 'dreamers' are quite another character, and we have had a few of them on this website, but they usually don't stay long. It is non-productive for them to put forth here, what THEY have found works in audio and have it 'heckled to death' by some hard core skeptics.
I must admit, that I find some 'dreamers' to be almost outrageous, YET often I have found that they are on to something that I can learn from, sooner or later. Keeping an 'open mind' is even difficult for me, at times, but I strive to do it, because it does not cost anything to accept another's belief as far as I can personally accept it at the time, WITHOUT damning it, as something that has to be 'wiped out' and utterly dismissed.
It works well for me.
Usually, skeptics will slow real breakthroughs, because they demand so much PROOF.
You and your friends cannot just HEAR SOMETHING and have it valid, you have to prove it with a stringent ABX test (or its equivalent) put together by people who don't believe anything that is not proven beyond the ABX results, that are usually NULL.
The 'dreamers' are quite another character, and we have had a few of them on this website, but they usually don't stay long. It is non-productive for them to put forth here, what THEY have found works in audio and have it 'heckled to death' by some hard core skeptics.
I must admit, that I find some 'dreamers' to be almost outrageous, YET often I have found that they are on to something that I can learn from, sooner or later. Keeping an 'open mind' is even difficult for me, at times, but I strive to do it, because it does not cost anything to accept another's belief as far as I can personally accept it at the time, WITHOUT damning it, as something that has to be 'wiped out' and utterly dismissed.
It works well for me.
The combination of the Iron Lawbreakers (world's largest bookshelf speakers
) and an OTL amplifier such as my DC coupled all triode one actually comes closer to the 132 db limit (can exceed 120 db at the listening chair) than one might expect for transient rich information. I actually operate the OTL's output stage about 10-15 volts into AB2 territory. With a +/- 160 Vdc output stage power supply, it can supply about 66Vrms before clipping into the HF xover network driving the Altec 288-16G section, where it is divided down to about 30Vrms at the driver terminals between 1Khz - 10khz. With approximately 109db/w/m through most of the midband and lower HF into the room with 4Vrms at the driver terminals in this range, about 126db at 1 meter can appear per channel before clipping hits. Of course the 2220B woofer can't be driven this loudly by the OTL (falls about 6-8db short), but most transient detail has the majority of its energy concentrated at higher frequencies, so the majority of the effect if not all should remain.Double blind testing actually militates against certain forms of human perception due to its limited ability to take into account longer term impressions. There is also a familiarity factor - the system that one is most used to and that a particular user can perceive the most from is virtually never the system used for double blind testing, nor is the environment, and to a lesser extent, the same goes for the program material. Given the above, I've found that I can detect the presence or absence of a single large value (~10uf) inline film capacitor in my home system using double blind testing (3 out of 3).
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.