"Eeyore"


** This page from Doug Self gives audio specific and detailed analysis.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm


Shame most if it will go way over the heads of all non-technical and
half-technical folk.

As someone famous one said,

" You cannot reason someone out of a position that they were never first
reasoned into."




....... Phil

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the
scientific method entirely. Graham

I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason
you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be
because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of
sound quality than the average ss user.

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

On 18 Sep 2006 02:57:59 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

We get the point that you're switching target from sound to
appearance, but forgetting to also switch from ears to eyes.

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 02:57:59 -0700, "Andy Evans"
wrote:

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

We get the point that you're switching target from sound to
appearance, but forgetting to also switch from ears to eyes.

I don't think you get the point at all.

Scott

Andy Evans wrote:

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in
particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the
scientific method entirely. Graham

I think the words you are looking for are "non-science", and the reason
you've pulled "devotees of thermionics" out of a very large hat may be
because they are more discriminating and require further degrees of
sound quality than the average ss user.

I'd say rather that my idea of discrimination is different to theirs.


So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how tubes /
valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound of added
low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often intentionally
used in the studio as an *EFFECT* !


Would you go on to say that boys who select their girlfriends on the
basis of looks are "anti-science" because they haven't considered the
compatibility of their DNA? We're on a very slippery slope here. I
could go on with further examples but you get the point.

No. What we're talking abou is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they like'
must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any supporting
science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their ideas.

Graham

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how
tubes /
valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the sound
of added
low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often
intentionally
used in the studio as an *EFFECT* !

I'll pass over the fact that these arguments are tired old rubbish from
vague memories of 60s valve equipment and simply say that there are no
"pseudo arguments" at all. Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound. You just can't
seem to accept this, can you? You insist on continuing this silly
crusade to ridicule valve users who, for their part, are completely
happy with their equipment and have heard all these old tired arguments
as often as double bass players have heard the comment "why don't you
take up the flute"


What we're talking about is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what
they like'
must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any
supporting
science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters their
ideas.

There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for
you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE
REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users
don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics
they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make
preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures
doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of
equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less
harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be
what you expect them to do! Sheesh.........

"Andy Evans" wrote


There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for
you tired arguments. Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE
REALISTIC. My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users
don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics
they use as are any other equipment builders. The fact that they make
preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures
doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of
equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less
harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be
what you expect them to do! Sheesh.........



Well said Andy, but I trust you've got the soldering iron on while you are
wasting your breath arguing with the Denial Boyz....!! ;-)

(Me? I've got 'em binned - I can't be arsed with them any more....)

Keith G wrote:

Well said Andy, but I trust you've got the soldering iron on while you are
wasting your breath arguing with the Denial Boyz....!! ;-)

It's the tubists who are in denial about reality.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

It's the tubists who are in denial about reality.

How are they? How do you measure "sounds better"?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Andy Evans wrote:

So the fact that they use their ears to discriminate is "anti-science"!

No. It's the 'pseudo-arguments' they propose to explain in their how
tubes / valves are so wonderful. In fact they're simply revelling in the
sound
of added low-order distortion. The effect is well-known and indeed often
intentionally used in the studio as an *EFFECT* !

I'll pass over the fact that these arguments are tired old rubbish from
vague memories of 60s valve equipment and simply say that there are no
"pseudo arguments" at all. Valve users do so because the sounds they
hear are closer - to their ears - to the original sound.

And who are they to say ? Typically they're a bunch of deaf old fogeys.


You just can't
seem to accept this, can you?

Certainly not when any scientific test proves very simply that they're quite
wrong !

I'm not saying btw that the sound they like may not be flattering to the ear but
it has nothing whatever to do with true fidelity.


You insist on continuing this silly
crusade to ridicule valve users who, for their part, are completely
happy with their equipment and have heard all these old tired arguments
as often as double bass players have heard the comment "why don't you
take up the flute"

If someone likes their valve kit, that's up to them and good listening to them.
I'm simply tired of them pushing their subjectivist reasoning and false science
down everyone else's throats.


What we're talking about is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what
they like' must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to
any supporting science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that
counters their ideas.

There's no confusion - you've made all this up to create a forum for
you tired arguments.

There's nothing tired about it at all. The accuracy of the reproduction chain
can be easily measured to very high degrees of accuracy.

Please now try to explain intelligently why the tube nuts would have us believe
that a clealry very inaccurate amplifier is 'better' ?

Note, this is not about 'I like it - therefore.....' arguments.


Valve users believe that valves SOUND MORE
REALISTIC.

Possibly because they aren't even familiar with true realism ?

Open up Windows Media Player and select the SRS featue and tell me if a
recording sounds more 'full' or 'realistic' with or without the SRS ! Then come
back and explain how it works.


My God, how many times does it have to be said. Valve users
don't dismiss science - they are as scientific about the schematics
they use as are any other equipment builders.

But ignore the measurements.


The fact that they make
preferences with their ears rather than a spreadsheet of figures
doesn't make them unscientific either. And if they chose a piece of
equipment that sounded worse to their ears because there was 0.1% less
harmonic distortion, they would be plain bonkers. But that seems to be
what you expect them to do! Sheesh.........

So - are you now going to argue in favour of high distortion figures ?

Graham