|
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Keith G" wrote in message ... but I'm not really a *speaker person* - luckily, my choice of single, FR driver speakers has enabled me to avoid the problems with/of crossovers and I don't really know much about them. I understand from looking around that the Wharfedale Super12FS/AL is a full ranfe driver. They talk a little about them on the Full Range Driver Forum. I am not sure how you get a 12" driver to produce the full range. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Keith G wrote: (I love it when noobies try to tell me about **** like 'listener fatigue'....!!) Noobie ? I've 'doing' audio for 40 years, over 30 of them in a professional capacity. Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"APR" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... but I'm not really a *speaker person* - luckily, my choice of single, FR driver speakers has enabled me to avoid the problems with/of crossovers and I don't really know much about them. I understand from looking around that the Wharfedale Super12FS/AL is a full ranfe driver. They talk a little about them on the Full Range Driver Forum. OK - interesting. I really must try to get back into that forum! I am not sure how you get a 12" driver to produce the full range. Lightweight paper cone, short throw (Xmax??) and a *very* powerful magnet! (That way the driver's been there and done it, by the time summat flubbery's just started out!! ;-) |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
|
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
APR wrote: I am not sure how you get a 12" driver to produce the full range. Fairly badly usually ! Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: The funny thing is when someone says the food at such and such is great no one demands proof via DBTs. But presumably they aren't making claims for 'fidelity' into the bargain ! Doesn't matter. Because it's irrelevant in the case of restaurants. Right answer wrong reason. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue But if there's a short break between A and B ? Graham |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue But if there's a short break between A and B ? Graham To solve this problem why don't we do the B sample first??? |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue But if there's a short break between A and B ? The shorter the break the worse it is for B. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
APR wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue But if there's a short break between A and B ? Graham To solve this problem why don't we do the B sample first??? Good one. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: Yes. This is a ploy used in some demos. Also if you can make the second a little louder, this too will tip the balance. Yes. I had the trick about the level tweak explained to me by a guy who's familiar with hi-fi reviewers a couple of weeks ago. Works every time apparently ! Graham You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!" Iain |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , Keith G
wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article .com, Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically measuable. Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother. I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice measurements' I agree - although: 1) It will depend on the circumstances and what specific 'measurements' we are talking about 2) I was not necessarily talking about 'measurements'. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article . com, Andy
Evans wrote: I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. APR I've been having this discourse with Jim for quite some time and I think I understand his intentions quite well. The basic facts of the case are that the home audio industry - unlike other arenas like medicine where stringent tests are required (quite rightly) for products - has almost universally based its recommendations of products on comparative listening tests. Jim wants to take an unusual step for the home audio scene and ask for scientific proof of the superiority of A over B or the claim that A sounds better than B. Another misunderstanding, I'm afraid. What I am primarily asking for is evidence/details I and others could use to assess a claim or conclusion someone reports. Not "scientific proof". I was also primarily talking about what professional reviewers and workers in the field might do, not just in the "home". Nor anything to do with "superiority". Just to be able to have details that would help us distinguish reliable reports and conclusions from incorrect ones. He seems oblivious to the reality that this is a highly unusual demand, but continues to "demand" that people supply him with such data. Neat use of quotation marks to invent something and attribute it to me. I have not "demanded" anything of the kind. Just asked for details and pointed out that if they are not given we may be unable to make sense of a claim. As on various other recent occasions, your posting misunderstand and misreprents both what I have been saying, and what I mean. You then criticise your own inventions/misrepresentations, not what I actually said. [snip other misunderstandings] 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , Keith G
wrote: "APR" wrote in message ... I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles* and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical types' here to find out what point such a person is making without expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points without the frustration you mention. The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote: Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ? Graham I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people say or do. And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen a number of exampless where I point out where you do this. I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on people without expecting some comeback. But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and deal with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and attribute to me but which I did not say, nor mean. You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about". Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not understanding what I write. :-) BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same thing as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once again it shows an example of you inventing something and using using quotation marks to make it seem as if it was something I said or meant. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Iain Churches" wrote in message . .. You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!" Iain Iain, I wouldn't have thought of you as a person to use this form of psychoacoustic deception ;-) |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote in message ups.com... Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue But if there's a short break between A and B ? The shorter the break the worse it is for B. Comparison should be switchable and seamless. Iain |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
wrote in message ups.com... Eeyore wrote: wrote: Eeyore wrote: Iain Churches wrote: wrote in message Eeyore wrote: Keith G wrote: After an hour I can say it's fine/OK and if it was all I had I wouldn't be too unhappy, but usually when I swap back to the valves (haven't got time atm) I find the *improvement* is instantaneous and reaffirming. It's called listening fatigue. The break that you give yourself so doing allows the ear to recover. Now try it the other way round ! Hmmm I read somewhere that the opposite is usually in play. There seems to be a common bias to prefer the second smaple in an A/B comparison. Actually it seems that was what I was saying ! I wasn't thinking of an A/B comparison per se actually but I can well believe it. Interesting becuase i always thought listener fatigue happened after extensive listening, that would be the B in an A/B comparison How about after an hour ? depends on the system. But I think you missed the point the B will always follow the A so it will always involve greater listener fatigue Not necessarily Scott, if one is switching between the two at intervals. During an A/B most people seem to listen to segments of about 30 secs, not much more. Iain |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"APR" wrote in message ... "Iain Churches" wrote in message . .. You can make use of this in studio work too. When you get to V7 of a mix, and are convinced that V2 is the one, you can play then back to the client V7 first, and then V2 +2dB. He usually responds, "Yes you are right, that's the one!" Iain, I wouldn't have thought of you as a person to use this form of psychoacoustic deception ;-) You *know* when a mix is right, and at 0300 hrs, it's time to assert that knowledge:-) On an automated console you can keep the elements of the mix. Coming back the next morning, and comparing the two takes, re- enforces the fact that the decision was a correct one. The client says "I knew I could depend on your good judgement" and takes you to lunch:-) Iain |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , Iain Churches
wrote: You *know* when a mix is right, and at 0300 hrs, it's time to assert that knowledge:-) Having worked as a professional astrophysicist, I know just what you mean. 8-] 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article .com, Absolutely I believe any real audible difference is scientifically measuable. Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this, particularly where there is some dispute and/or the experiences of different people contradict. The problem is that they often seem not to want to bother. I would like to observe that I believe it isn't a trivial matter for ordinary people to make accurate and meaningful 'scientifice measurements' I agree - although: 1) It will depend on the circumstances and what specific 'measurements' we are talking about Of course... 2) I was not necessarily talking about 'measurements'. OK, right or wrong, I was linking "scientifically measu[r]able." and "Well, I think people should at least *try* to do this," (both above)....??? |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles* and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical types' here to find out what point such a person is making without expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points without the frustration you mention. The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many quarters. I know from offlist conversations in the past that a number of posters gave up here because they didn't feel free to comment on anything much without being 'put right' all the time or being pulled up for the wording &c. of their posts. The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open, otherwise that point is lost. Topics in this group are 'cyclic' - perhaps it isn't always possible or even necessary to get a clear understanding by all parties, first time round...?? Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Quite. Some will be, other will not be - goes with the territory... |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing
to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Jim I really think you are in complete denial over all this, Jim. Here, once again are your exact words. Again the same thing. You ask for (I used the word demand previously, but ask is OK) evidence BEYOND what is provided. What is usually provided (if we ignore deliberate hype) is the usual comparative listening results, which some, though not all, have gone to great pains to make as objective as possible. Best of a bad job, maybe, but that's overwhelmingly how the industry works - comparative listening. Since this is how information about products is usually assessed, then you - as you have said yourself - are asking for more than the majority of people are able or willing to provide, thus putting them potentially into a zone of discomfort. Now I have no problem with this if, as I have said many times, your attitude is "If you can't provide any details, then fine - I was just asking". But your attitude is NOT this. What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact word above, so let's not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and collectively accuse the person of communicating in a way that is not "worth taking seriously" (your exact words). If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business. Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously** |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously** I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for a while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious intent. Let's be a bit more obvious - let's turn it round then. Let me say to Jim "Alas, Jim, once again you continue to misunderstand me, and I leave it to others to decide whether your persistent requests for scientific evidence - where it is inappropriate or cannot be provided - are worth taking seriously or not" How does this sound to you - a) dismissive b) friendly |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: "APR" wrote in message ... I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to working with facts. Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles* and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical types' here to find out what point such a person is making without expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points without the frustration you mention. The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making the claim has no problem here. Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are SOL. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article . com, Andy Evans wrote: Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ? Graham I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people say or do. And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen a number of exampless where I point out where you do this. This is the typical out for passive aggressive behavior. When people are called on it they typically say it was the other person's misinterpretation. I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on people without expecting some comeback. But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and deal with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and attribute to me but which I did not say, nor mean. You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about". Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not understanding what I write. :-) Do you find that a lot of people have this problem with what you write ;-) Ever consider the possibility that at least some the fault is yours? BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same thing as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once again it shows an example of you inventing something and using using quotation marks to make it seem as if it was something I said or meant. I think you missunderstood what he meant by those quotation marks. What comes around goes around. Don't you agree? Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , Keith G
wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many quarters. The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex, depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down and enjoy the music. The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open, otherwise that point is lost. The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the specific case. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article , APR
wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business. Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously** You put your finger on the key issue so far as I am concerned. The problem I keep addressing is that in order to decide if a report/claim/assertion is reliable we may need some assessable evidence and details of how the claim was arrived at by the claimant. This is nothing to do with doubting the honesty of the person making the claim so far as I am concerned. I see no reason to feel that Andy (and others) are knowingly saying falsehoods. I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to be wrong. This may be because a phenomenon does not exist in some cases. But in others it be because they have misinterpreted an experience which is quite real and repeatable - but did not occur for the reasons they assumed. Thus some observations may be correctly reported whilst the causes assigned to them are not. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote: Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously** I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for a while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious intent. Strange that you regard such a distinction as "theoretical"... I can't recall who wrote what you quote above, and you seem to have removed the context, but the difference seems both clear, and significant, to me. I have repeatedly said is that we can't tell if a claim is worth "taking seriously" *unless* we have the relevant evidence/details upon which what was said is based. We can then judge it on that basis. Not simply by someone having made an assertion. Thus I am trying to deal with the reasons people may have for what they say, not with who says them. Yet from what you say, this distinction is "theoretical" so far as you are concerned. Let's be a bit more obvious - let's turn it round then. Let me say to Jim "Alas, Jim, once again you continue to misunderstand me, and I leave it to others to decide whether your persistent requests for scientific evidence - where it is inappropriate or cannot be provided - are worth taking seriously or not" How does this sound to you - a) dismissive b) friendly Perhaps, Andy, you can give one or two specific examples from this thread where I have misunderstood you. Please do so by giving the specific references so others can confirm that what you quote is as you say, and can check the context for themselves. I and others can then use this to see if I am misunderstanding you or not. I am rather less concerned with trying to guess if what you wrote above was either "dismissive" or "friendly", than with if it has any basis in evidence, as distinct from being an invention or misunderstanding on your part. BTW I am quite happy to leave others to decide for themselves, as you suggest. :-) 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article .com,
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making the claim has no problem here. The claimant has a problem if they want readers to take what they say seriously, but they do not due to the lack of evidence. Anyone who wants to take a claim seriously may have a problem if they want to base their assessment on evidence/details that the claimant won't provide. Of course, anyone who does not care if an assertion has any basis in evidence may not feel there is a problem. That is their choice. Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are SOL. No idea what 'SOL' means, I'm afraid. I have no expectation that "most audiophiles" would provide any evidence or details at all. Most of them do not appear in magazines or on usenet, making assertions which others may then want to read and consider. The curio is that some people *do* make assertions, but then won't provide evidence/details which allow what they say to be judged as anything more that an assertion. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
In article .com,
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article . com, Andy Evans wrote: Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ? Graham I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what people say or do. And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen a number of exampless where I point out where you do this. This is the typical out for passive aggressive behavior. When people are called on it they typically say it was the other person's misinterpretation. Please read the examples I have given where Andy misrepresents what I said. Note that he never actually quoted me saying what he asserted. Have a look back through this thread. If you find some examples where you feel that I have said that Andy misinterpreted me, but I am wrong, please quote one or two, giving the details of the postings so that I and others can examine them in context. I appreciate that this can be quite difficult, though, as Andy does not follow the usual usenet conventions regarding quoting and responding, hence what he posts has often lost its context. Please also see below... I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn on people without expecting some comeback. But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and deal with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and attribute to me but which I did not say, nor mean. You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't see what all the fuss is about". Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not understanding what I write. :-) Do you find that a lot of people have this problem with what you write ;-) Ever consider the possibility that at least some the fault is yours? Yes, it is certainly possible that some people do not understand what I write. Indeed, this is why I may respond when someone posts something that is based upon not having understood what was talking about. I see some signs of this, for example, in what Andy says about some of what I have written. However I have not seen any sign that "a lot" of people have difficulty understanding what I have been writing. I don't know how many people are reading this thread, nor what those who have said nothing actually think one way or the other. Let me invite everyone reading this thread to respond to the following questions: Do people think that what I have been saying is unclear and that I am at fault for this? (No need for Andy or porky to answer this as their views already seem apparent, but I'd be interested in what others may say.) As as specific example: Do people not see the distinction I make between 'evidence' and 'proof'? I have no idea if anyone else *is* actually reading this thread to this point, but it would be interesting to see what comments people might make. It would not surprise me, though, to find that most people lost interest ages ago and there are only two or three people still reading this. :-) Let me also ask you, porky: Did you notice that, having read Andy's comments, I then pointed out that - for example - I was talking about evidence, not proof? Was that statement on my part unclear or difficult to understand? Is the distinction I make between them unclear? The purpose of my writing such responses is to correct misunderstandings. It is a common human experience that misunderstandings will arise, but the mechanism we have to deal with this is the feedback of pointing out the mistake, as I have been doing. Fortunately, I have found that most of my students over the years, and most of those who have commented on what I have had published, seem to follow most of what I have written/said.[1] It may be significant that most students I teach are in physics and engineering, so already have a background knowledge of the thinks I write about. But I can see that I may well write things here which are unclear to some readers. No idea if they are "a lot" or a large fraction of those reading, but my impression over the years is that most of the people I discuss things with seem to follow what I am saying OK. [1] Of course, this does not necessarily mean they always agree with me. :-) BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same thing as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once again it shows an example of you inventing something and using using quotation marks to make it seem as if it was something I said or meant. I think you missunderstood what he meant by those quotation marks. What comes around goes around. Don't you agree? No idea what you mean, I'm afraid. Perhaps you can quote what he said that you are referring to, and explain more specifically. 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 |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... Let me invite everyone reading this thread to respond to the following questions: Do people think that what I have been saying is unclear and that I am at fault for this? (No need for Andy or porky to answer this as their views already seem apparent, but I'd be interested in what others may say.) As as specific example: Do people not see the distinction I make between 'evidence' and 'proof'? Hi Jim, I see that you are asking for evidence, which is something I would require of people if trying to get away from the subjective interpretations that people often present. I don't have any issues with your approach at all. I see too many intangibles surrounding "high end" audio and too many people who seem to be chasing audio nirvana giving credence to any statement suggesting *this upgrade* will give an improvement. You only have to look at the devices being sold to keep your speaker cables off the floor. When a significant portion of the population is prepared to buy snake oil you cannot accept at face value what that portion of the population may say about anything. I think maybe you *should* be asking for proof. |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Have a look back through this thread. If you find some examples where
you feel that I have said that Andy misinterpreted me, but I am wrong, please quote one or two, giving the details of the postings so that I and others can examine them in context.JLS If you think that going through all your posts and correcting all the alleged misinterpretations will nullify the points I have made you are very much mistaken. I can see that you feel this is the easy way out for you, and I note that as usual you are asking everybody else to find all the evidence, something I'm sure that nobody will be bothered to do, and why should they? |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many quarters. The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex, depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down and enjoy the music. These posts are always difficult to reply to because, due to the delays involved, the 'moment' has very often passed for me and I have no inclination to go ploughing back through the threads to check various points. Thus, taking the above in isolation, I can only say I have no argument with your opinion of 'magazine reviewers' generally but would only say that magazine reviews are very likely to fall short of the expectations of people who are more 'technically' capable but, presumably, do at least serve the purpose of keep less 'technically capable' readers entertained and sales of the magazines up? No-one in his right mind swallows the whole thing but many find something of interest and, oddly enough, I suspect all of us like to see a bit of kit we have already bought/own get a thumbs up (OK, meaningless in many instances) from some wattock, whether we rate them or not..?? The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open, otherwise that point is lost. The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the specific case. Much of what we read is not *information* in the strictest sense, but I still say it's as much the responsibility of the informee to ensure he understands what the informer is trying to say when statements are made in a general 'conversation', as in this group. Demanding certain 'standards be met' is only another way of driving off people who share some interest in the hobby, albeit it at a less technical level, IMO.... |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many quarters. The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex, depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down and enjoy the music. The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open, otherwise that point is lost. They are either lying or they are getting it right. I have only caught one reviewer lying n an article but he was pimping DBTs at the time. That is a bit ironic don't you think? The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the specific case. .. I'm not buying your semantical argument. A subjective review is information whether you like it or not the reader is *informed* on the reviewers subjective impressions. Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , APR wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com... If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business. Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously** You put your finger on the key issue so far as I am concerned. The problem I keep addressing is that in order to decide if a report/claim/assertion is reliable we may need some assessable evidence and details of how the claim was arrived at by the claimant. This is nothing to do with doubting the honesty of the person making the claim so far as I am concerned. I see no reason to feel that Andy (and others) are knowingly saying falsehoods. I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to be wrong. Really? Wrong in what way? How do you know they were wrong? This may be because a phenomenon does not exist in some cases. But in others it be because they have misinterpreted an experience which is quite real and repeatable - but did not occur for the reasons they assumed. Thus some observations may be correctly reported whilst the causes assigned to them are not. Can you provide us with the evidence to support this claim? Scott |
Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
Jim Lesurf wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Keith G wrote: The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having no assessable information. Actually that is *your* problem not *the* problem. The person making the claim has no problem here. The claimant has a problem if they want readers to take what they say seriously, but they do not due to the lack of evidence. Not really. If they have any experience they know a certain subset will always be nay-sayers. Personally I would just find it amusing if there weren't the anti-science bull**** tied to it. Anyone who wants to take a claim seriously may have a problem if they want to base their assessment on evidence/details that the claimant won't provide. Practically no such people exist IMO. There are people who accept opinions as aopinions and people who dont accept subjective opinions about anything they think should have no sonic character of it's own. True open minds are pretty rare. Of course, anyone who does not care if an assertion has any basis in evidence may not feel there is a problem. That is their choice. There's evidence and there is evidence. So far I have yet to see anything rise above the level of anecdotal evidence. All I see are guys like you picking and chosing their favored anedotes and calling it scientific. No thanks. That is truly anti-science. Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Yes, and since most audiophiles are busy enjoying their systems rather than gathering evidence those who demand evidence to support claims are SOL. No idea what 'SOL' means, I'm afraid. **** Out of Luck I have no expectation that "most audiophiles" would provide any evidence or details at all. Most of them do not appear in magazines or on usenet, making assertions which others may then want to read and consider. The curio is that some people *do* make assertions, but then won't provide evidence/details which allow what they say to be judged as anything more that an assertion. Yet you are no different. Sadly it seems you do not see this reality. Scott |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk