In article , Keith G
wrote:



OK, this is difficult.

I'd agree. So bear in mind I'm not quibbling for the sake of trying to
nit-pick with you or find fault. I am just trying to 'raise awarness' as we
have to say these days that these things can be hard to discuss since
people may use the same words or phrases in critically different ways. With
that said, I'll continue... :-)

Put simply:

If someone jacks his kit up on cubes of coconut husk or whatever (don't
dismiss that as impossible, btw) and tells me it has *improved* the
sound, I say he perceives a difference (real or imagined) and therefore
believes there's an improvement. OTOH, in the time-honoured ukra way
(*unheard*) I would not believe it - unless I heard the kit before and
after and could perceive a difference myself?

Does that help?

Not sure. :-)

The problem is that some people might react to the statement that he
"perceives a difference" as meaning that he physically sensed a difference
- e.g if we could have attached some measurement kit to his ears it would
have produced a changed output. Others might take it to mean that his
impression was that there was a difference.

When you say "could perceive a difference myself" we have a similar
difficulty. I'd say that if a set of tests were done which could reliably
establish that - by sound alone - you/he repeatedly showed you could tell
the difference, then you did 'sense' or 'detect' a difference, but if such
tests showed no such result then you have 'believed' it.

FWIW I'd agree that even 'belived' is difficult in such situations. Hence
my preference is to try and use language that is more based on
evidence-linked statments like those above. The snag is that these can get
long-winded, and may still be problematic....

It is just that my impression is that I've seen many arguments which were
simply based on those involved not all using the same meaning for terms
like 'perceive'. Hence they argued at cross purposes, or in a way that was
futile. My interest then tends to be to ask what the nature and detail of
the evidence may be.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,

Arny Krueger wrote:
Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no
better than a second-rate world power, and probably
worse.

Remind us again of the balance of payment problems in the
US?

Its only a problem if its a problem. If you look at recent history, you'll
see that the US had a balance-of-payments situation with Japan for years and
years. In the end they ran their own currency into the ground, making it
easier for us to balance the books.

And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can make the UK back into
a first-rate world power. If it was that easy, one would think that it
would have already been done.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
, Keith G
wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have a
shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since that
then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use the
word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to perceive
to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I perceive
it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into irrelevance Keith,
the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim about interpretation
of the word 'perceive' - these threads wander where they will, or hadn't you
noticed? (It would explain some of your wacky responses....)


Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a group
of people 'not far from here' who have *perceptions* that
contradict what he had stated - I never said that I
shared those 'perceptions', I simply mentioned that I was
surprised he wasn't challenged on some of the points he
has made. Note also that my response to JL (also above)
was merely to ask what word he would prefer to
'perceive', as he doesn't like it - although I have to
say it is unambiguous to me. Then you will see that the,
er, veridiculous use of the word 'veridical' in this
context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost track of the context,
not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present subject matter and, as
such, the context has changed and 2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of
context in a thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it? If I
was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the perception of the taste of
pancakes while listening to both ss and valve amps and make a comparison
between them it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....


As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about veridical
perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and who cares about
trying for accurate, lifelike reproduction.


Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those wistful souls
*perceiving* differences with endless tweaks are trying to achieve just that
very thing. I'm not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio' stops
being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up needlework or summat, but
that said, no-one here works harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up
from my garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting speakers and
this morning I sacrificed a good deal of time to provide Plowie with some
sound clips to evaluate. (Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond
to them!! ;-)



There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems, none of which
should pretend to be the best.


Read it again and think carefully (work on your *comprehension*) - it's
nothing to do with any 'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will
be the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to measure it. The
owner of that system will very likely not even be aware of it.....

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first language have been
avoided.... ;-)



The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion. Reality is about many
things that approach but do not attain perfection.


Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not 'perfect' - not the same
thing, is it.....??



*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not necessarily
better. Attitudes like yours are one reason why the UK is no better than a
second-rate world power, and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe to *no*
US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and utter lack of interest in
them!!??

Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is bored with the US and
the days the US could *large it* in the world with impunity are over. (If
they ever existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright crafty are
beating their way to our shores in droves, passing through many countries
with a better standard of living than we have to get here!!

(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is home to the finest
audio in the world!! ;-)

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can make the UK back
into a first-rate world power. If it was that easy, one would think
that it would have already been done.

The pound wasn't revalued. Simply the once almighty dollar sank. Due to
the appalling trade deficit with the rest of the world.

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
And what the dollar is worth against the pound? ;-)

First remind me about how simply revaluing pound can
make the UK back into a first-rate world power. If it
was that easy, one would think that it would have
already been done.

The pound wasn't revalued. Simply the once almighty
dollar sank. Due to the appalling trade deficit with the
rest of the world.

Think of it as buying with a hidden discount. ;-)

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
,
Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound
different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since
that then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use
the word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to
perceive to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I
perceive it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into
irrelevance Keith, the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim
about interpretation of the word 'perceive' - these
threads wander where they will, or hadn't you noticed?
(It would explain some of your wacky responses....)

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a
group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I
never said that I shared those 'perceptions', I simply
mentioned that I was surprised he wasn't challenged on
some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word
he would prefer to 'perceive', as he doesn't like it -
although I have to say it is unambiguous to me. Then
you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost
track of the context, not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present
subject matter and, as such, the context has changed and
2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of context in a
thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it?
If I was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the
perception of the taste of pancakes while listening to
both ss and valve amps and make a comparison between them
it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about
veridical perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much
credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and
who cares about trying for accurate, lifelike
reproduction.

Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those
wistful souls *perceiving* differences with endless
tweaks are trying to achieve just that very thing.

They get to waste their time with illusions, if they so desire.

I'm
not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio'
stops being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up
needlework or summat, but that said, no-one here works
harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up from my
garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting
speakers and this morning I sacrificed a good deal of
time to provide Plowie with some sound clips to evaluate.
(Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond to
them!! ;-)

To summarize then Keith, you see audio as a means for getting abused by
others?

There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems,
none of which should pretend to be the best.

Read it again and think carefully (work on your
*comprehension*) - it's nothing to do with any
'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will be
the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to
measure it.

If life was only that simplistic.

The owner of that system will very likely not
even be aware of it.....

Why should he care?

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first
language have been avoided.... ;-)

Not at all.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion.
Reality is about many things that approach but do not
attain perfection.

Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not
'perfect' - not the same thing, is it.....??

How do you know for sure that something is best if it is not perfect?

BTW Keith, take all the time you want to frame a logical reply.


*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not
necessarily better. Attitudes like yours are one reason
why the UK is no better than a second-rate world power,
and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe
to *no* US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and
utter lack of interest in them!!??

Limited world view noted.

Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is
bored with the US and the days the US could *large it* in
the world with impunity are over.

Seems like the US has plenty of errr influence in the UK.

(If they ever
existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright
crafty are beating their way to our shores in droves,
passing through many countries with a better standard of
living than we have to get here!!

The same for the US, except that they don't usually pass through any
countries with a better standard of living than the US for some reason.

(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is
home to the finest audio in the world!! ;-)

Whatever it takes to get you through the day, Keith.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in veridical perceptions.
Illusions are fun, but that's about it for them.


'Veridical perception' - oxymoron. Let your Objective World of Audio go!

Rob

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in
message ...
In article
,
Keith G wrote:
"Serge Auckland"
wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I think the nub of your response is that people
"believe" things sound different. It's the same
mental process that have people believing in God,
the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They don't have
a shred of objective evidence that things sound
different, just their faith.


Let's say they *perceive* things to sound
different.

OTOH lets *not* say they "perceive" things since
that then opens up all the
ambiguities and misundestandings where people use
the word 'perceive' in different ways and argue at
cross-purposes... :-)

What word would you prefer then? They have to
perceive to believe, do they not?

A little apparently much-needed Psychology 101:

There are two kinds of perceptions:

Illusory or unreliable
Veridical or reliable


Actually, four....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perception

Different issues.


...none of them based on factual accuracy, as I
perceive it....

:-)

Obviously true for you, Keith.

Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

I suspect (correct me, if I'm wrong) that, in your haste
to dash off yet another sniffy little snipe at me, you
have lost the plot somewhat..??

If you mean that I ignored your gratuitous detour into
irrelevance Keith, the answer would be yes.


What 'gratuitous detour'? I'm in a discussion with Jim
about interpretation of the word 'perceive' - these
threads wander where they will, or hadn't you noticed?
(It would explain some of your wacky responses....)

Please re-read the thread above and note where I
responded to Serge to merely report that there is a
group of people 'not far from here' who have
*perceptions* that contradict what he had stated - I
never said that I shared those 'perceptions', I simply
mentioned that I was surprised he wasn't challenged on
some of the points he has made. Note also that my
response to JL (also above) was merely to ask what word
he would prefer to 'perceive', as he doesn't like it -
although I have to say it is unambiguous to me. Then
you will see that the, er, veridiculous use of the word
'veridical' in this context is irrelevant.*

Wordplay notwithstanding, it is you Keith that lost
track of the context, not I.


See above 1) the thread has evolved to its present
subject matter and, as such, the context has changed and
2) the OP is me - difficult to be out of context in a
thread I started and wandered where I led it, ain't it?
If I was to turn attention in this thread to, say, the
perception of the taste of pancakes while listening to
both ss and valve amps and make a comparison between them
it would not be out of context, AFAIAC....

As to the rather vague "Some of the rest of us mostly" -
you would do better in my book if you had the balls to
speak only for yourself and not try to pad your
opinions/arguments with the implied support/agreement of
a group of invisible colleagues.

Let's see if you can get this, Keith:


OK, let's....


Science and other attempts at reliable facts are about
veridical perceptions.


What number is that in 'Arny's Book Of Rules'...??


Fiction, hype, and error is about giving too much
credibility,
or the wrong kind of credibility to illusions.


No, that's called 'Hollywood'.....



As to 'illusions' and
'fun' - that's what the whole 'audio' game is about,
ain't it?

Pehaps for you, Keith - it may be all fun and games and
who cares about trying for accurate, lifelike
reproduction.

Naughty boy, Arny - you know better than that! Even those
wistful souls *perceiving* differences with endless
tweaks are trying to achieve just that very thing.

They get to waste their time with illusions, if they so desire.

I'm
not employed in the audio industry and the day 'audio'
stops being fun for me is the day I chuck it and take up
needlework or summat, but that said, no-one here works
harder at this 'fun' than I do - I'm just up from my
garage/workshop where I've been finishing off/painting
speakers and this morning I sacrificed a good deal of
time to provide Plowie with some sound clips to evaluate.
(Knowing that he wouldn't have the grace to respond to
them!! ;-)

To summarize then Keith, you see audio as a means for getting abused by
others?


No, only posting here - and then only by you and your little pal Plowie!
;-)



There is only one person with the *best* audio
system (somewhere) in the world - everyone else is
deluding themselves to a greater or lesser degree, are
they not....??

Wrong. There are a certain number of very good systems,
none of which should pretend to be the best.

Read it again and think carefully (work on your
*comprehension*) - it's nothing to do with any
'pretence', it is a certain fact that one system will be
the *best* in the world by whatever means you wish to
measure it.

If life was only that simplistic.


Arny, *best* is like Highlander - there can be only *one*....!!

????

(How hard can that be...???)



The owner of that system will very likely not
even be aware of it.....

Why should he care?

(Cheap shots about *proper* English not being your first
language have been avoided.... ;-)

Not at all.

The concept of "best" is usually just an illusion.
Reality is about many things that approach but do not
attain perfection.

Keep a grip Arnold, we are talking 'best' here, not
'perfect' - not the same thing, is it.....??

How do you know for sure that something is best if it is not perfect?


Er, you very likely don't and, as I stated earlier, the owner of the *best*
probably doesn't even know it is the best! Nothing's *perfect* btw -
especially not in 'technology' and even the 'best' will be superceded sooner
or later (usually a matter of weeks in AV kit)...

Lemme give you the best (oops) example that I can think of offhand - at this
moment in time, the best *artificial heart* you can get is still far from
perfect....???

Does that help? Do you geddit?



BTW Keith, take all the time you want to frame a logical reply.


It took no time at all, I can't believe you are being so obtuse - unless
it's deliberate for 'artistic effect'...???




*IOW, don't try to flannel your way into an UK newsgroup
with fancy English, me auld china - especially not when
this 'Englishman' went to an English Grammar School that
was older than your *country*...!! ;-)

Contrary to your ill-founded beliefs Keith, older is not
necessarily better. Attitudes like yours are one reason
why the UK is no better than a second-rate world power,
and probably worse.

:-)

Yet you subscribe to a UK (audio) group and I subscribe
to *no* US/US-centric groups, due to my complete and
utter lack of interest in them!!??

Limited world view noted.


Well, if you're going to write my name in a little book or summat, at least
spell it correctly - it's "P.I.K.E"....



Wake up Arny and smell your own coffee - the world is
bored with the US and the days the US could *large it* in
the world with impunity are over.

Seems like the US has plenty of errr influence in the UK.


Certainly does - if only some of it was *beneficial*!!

(Tell you what, send us William Shatner and we'll make him Prime Minister!!
:-)



(If they ever
existed...???) OTOH, the weak, lame or just downright
crafty are beating their way to our shores in droves,
passing through many countries with a better standard of
living than we have to get here!!

The same for the US, except that they don't usually pass through any
countries with a better standard of living than the US for some reason.


That's 'cos they don't come through Europe....

(See how far your dollars will get you in any European capital, starting
with Rome.... ;-)



(I think it's because they know, deep down, the UK is
home to the finest audio in the world!! ;-)

Whatever it takes to get you through the day, Keith.

Sure. Now what do you reckon we're up to - 11 indents now?? :-)

"Rob" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

'Veridical perception' - oxymoron.

Wrong.

Google finds upwards of 100,000 references to this phrase.

Let your Objective World of Audio go!

My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Some of the rest of us are mostly interested in
veridical perceptions. Illusions are fun, but that's
about it for them.

'Veridical perception' - oxymoron.

Wrong.

Google finds upwards of 100,000 references to this phrase.



Wrong.

15,300 actually.....

;-)

(Google Tip: Use "----" to restrict the results to those containing the
*exact phrase* only...)



Let your Objective World of Audio go!

My world? it's an objectivist/subjectivist blend.


Of course - what else could it be?