Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Utter bull****, we've had the technology since the early '90s, as a
*careful* listen to modern amps and CD/DVD players will show. Don't
believe everything you read in the hi-fi rags!


Perhaps you ought to get your ears checked, I auditioned three cd
players last week and they were chalk and cheese.

Keith G wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

but I am unsure what evidence you have for
saying that that *no* item is 'neutral'.




I have no *evidence* - it is a *belief* that I hold and will continue to
hold until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary. Do you have such
evidence'?

Perhaps a definition of believe is in order (from dictionary.com):
be·lieve Pronunciation Key (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v. tr.

1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to
solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe
in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.





Have you heard every item in
existance?

I don't think that's possible.


Nor am I clear what definition you both have for 'neutral'.



Best take that up with Mr Pinkerton in case I've got it wrong, otherwise I
take 'neutral' to mean a total absence of measureable and/or perceptible
colouration and/or distortion. (Can't speak for Mr Street though....)

That'll do me.




FWIW When I listen to some kit playing some music from CD/DVD I get no
sense at all of listening to a particular CD/DVD player. I just think
something like, "what a superb pianist Brendel is" when listening to a
CD/DVD of him playing... Given this, I think I'd be happy to regard the
CD/DVD player in use as 'neutral' in the absence of a better definition.
:-)

You must have a suitable CD player then.

we just don't have the technology.


Nor ever will have - no more than there will ever be a 'Perpetual
Motion' machine....

Perhaps not, but I imagine we'll get pretty close.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:40:46 +0100, cubastreet
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


And did you choose your guitar because it so superbly reproduced the
sound of your fingers twanging strings, or for the distinctive tone of
the whole instrument?

I bought them both because they were cheap - £12 electric and £25 acoustic.


And, if you ever cut a record, would you want some second-rate CD
player *changing* that sound?

A first rate one that made it sound better would be nice.

Better than what?

The truth is, no two cd players sound the same

Bull****.

so you should audition
them with a test cd and scope, or your ears, depending on which you
trust more.

Both reveal that many modern CD players *do* sound the same.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:44:32 +0100, cubastreet
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Utter bull****, we've had the technology since the early '90s, as a
*careful* listen to modern amps and CD/DVD players will show. Don't
believe everything you read in the hi-fi rags!

Perhaps you ought to get your ears checked, I auditioned three cd
players last week and they were chalk and cheese.

Perhaps you should try listening when you don't *know* what's
connected.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


but I am unsure what evidence you have for saying that that *no* item
is 'neutral'.

I have no *evidence* - it is a *belief* that I hold and will continue to
hold until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary. Do you have
such evidence'?

No, I have no evidence that would support your belief. Indeed, my
experience seems to indicate the contrary view. However it would depend on
what definition you are using for 'neutral'.

You are obviously free to hold whatever beliefs you wish. However if you
wish to state them to others, and have them seriously, then some reasons or
evidence might help.


Have you heard every item in existance?


No. Have you?

Nope. Nor am I making any claims about *every item in existence*. I am not
claiming they are *all* 'neutral'. Indeed, I don't know what definition you
are using for that term. I am simply pointing out that my experience seems
not to support your 'belief'. Since your assertion is about *every* item,
only one contrary experience would show your belief to be false.



Nor am I clear what definition you both have for 'neutral'.


Best take that up with Mr Pinkerton in case I've got it wrong, otherwise
I take 'neutral' to mean a total absence of measureable and/or
perceptible colouration and/or distortion. (Can't speak for Mr Street
though....)

OK. On that basis I can only repeat that with the main systems I use, I
listen and have no audible impression at all of the CD player or amps being
anything other than 'neutral'. I don't sit and find I have the feeling I
can hear effects due to them. I sit and enjoy what seems to me to be the
sound of musicians playing music and get feelings like "What an excellent
performance, well played.". I am unaware of the CD player. This means
that on the basis of your definition I have some items of equipment
which seem to me to be 'neutral'. I can't comment on other items I have
not used, so see no reason to say *all* items are 'neutral'. Indeed, I've
heard items which seemed to me to obviously alter/affect the results.

But your beleif was about *every* item that exists. Hence my experience
is contrary to your stated belief.


FWIW When I listen to some kit playing some music from CD/DVD I get no
sense at all of listening to a particular CD/DVD player. I just think
something like, "what a superb pianist Brendel is" when listening to a
CD/DVD of him playing... Given this, I think I'd be happy to regard
the CD/DVD player in use as 'neutral' in the absence of a better
definition.
:-)


That's perfectly fine and I'm glad it works for you, but it doesn't mean
a thing to me .....!!

But one contrary example is enough to falsify a belief making claims about
*all* items.



You seem to have extended from knowing what every currently existing
item performs like to knowing in advance about every future one.


No, you are confusing 'belief' with 'certain knowledge'.

Let me ask you one: Does 'God' exist....???


Short answer: I have no idea. I have no 'belief' on that question
one way or the other. Nor any evidence.

Longer answer: I'm afraid that your own comment and question shows
some confusion - in the sense of muddling together distinct things.

You can use the word 'belief' in various ways. This means that asking
a question that implies 'belief' in the *existence* of a unique item
is different to expressing a 'belief' in the properties of many millions
of individual items which are accepted to exist. I would arge that we
have a fair bit of evidence that indicates that many cd players,
amps, etc, do exist. Thus if you express a 'belief' about *every single
one of them* you may find your 'belief' can be shown unreliable by the
experience of one single example being contrary to your 'belief'.

In distinction, I doubt that those who 'believe' in a particular
monotheistic 'God' would generally accept that one contrary experience
shows their 'belief' to be incorrect. You are not comparing comparable
cases.

Nor do I think that all cases come down to 'certain knowledge' or
'belief'. We can accept things on the basis of evidence until
other evidence may arise that causes us to change a view. This does
not constitute 'belief' in the same way as a religious zealot might
regard their 'belief'... The word is being used in different ways


Somehow I doubt you have the necessary evidence for this belief about
*every* individual current and future item over the rest of eternity,
but if you do, I'd be interested to hear it...


I don't evidence *for* my belief, I would only need evidence to prove it
wrong.

One example does so for a claim about *every* case. :-)

You did not say that you doubted that any 'neutral' items existed. You
stated a 'belief' that *none* did/could. This form of claim can be shown
unreliable by a single contrary experience.

However my real point here is that others may wish to see what evidence
you could provide to support your 'belief'. As I indicated, this implies
that you'd need to show evidence for *all* items - i.e. not just those
you'd heard. And also show good reason for any contrary examples to
be unreliable for some plausible reason. Since I can't yet see how
you can provide evidence for *all* items, I don't see how you can
do this.


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In article , cubastreet
wrote:
Keith G wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Have you heard every item in existance?

I don't think that's possible.

So why make a statement which you cannot show to be reliable?

If you had said that no items you have heard fit the class you describe,
that would be different.


Nor am I clear what definition you both have for 'neutral'.



Best take that up with Mr Pinkerton in case I've got it wrong,
otherwise I take 'neutral' to mean a total absence of measureable
and/or perceptible colouration and/or distortion. (Can't speak for
Mr Street though....)

That'll do me.

Then on that basis I find that some of the CD players and amps I use behave
as if 'neutral' in my experience. Given that only one contrary example is
required to fasilfy a statement about *all* items, this implies your belief
is unfounded.




FWIW When I listen to some kit playing some music from CD/DVD I get no
sense at all of listening to a particular CD/DVD player. I just think
something like, "what a superb pianist Brendel is" when listening to a
CD/DVD of him playing... Given this, I think I'd be happy to regard
the CD/DVD player in use as 'neutral' in the absence of a better
definition.
:-)

You must have a suitable CD player then.

Actually, in the case I had in mind it is a DVD player, but yes, it seems
that I do. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

cubastreet wrote:

The truth is, no two cd players sound the same.

That's because they are so hard to use to do a proper listening test.

so you should audition
them with a test cd and scope, or your ears, depending on which you
trust more.

Been there, done that. It's amazing how cheap good-sounding optical
players have gotten.

cubastreet wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Utter bull****, we've had the technology since the early '90s, as a
*careful* listen to modern amps and CD/DVD players will show. Don't
believe everything you read in the hi-fi rags!


Perhaps you ought to get your ears checked, I auditioned three cd
players last week and they were chalk and cheese.

None of your so-called tests were level-matched within 0.1 dB and
time-synched within a few milliseconds, were they?

Arny Krueger wrote:


None of your so-called tests were level-matched within 0.1 dB and
time-synched within a few milliseconds, were they?



Who said anything about tests?

In article ,
cubastreet wrote:
None of your so-called tests were level-matched within 0.1 dB and
time-synched within a few milliseconds, were they?



Who said anything about tests?

The 'ear' has a poor memory and is easily fooled. So when comparing the
sound of say two different pieces of equipment it's necessary to make sure
the differences are real and not imagined, or down to something so trivial
as different levels.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.