Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:z6q3h.2238$Wd5.62@trnddc05...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)

It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by
Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here.



Sure, why not? It definitely says 'fight fire with fire' on page 28 of my
copy of 'How To Scrape By'.....???

Talking of which, here's a clip of a St Neots (UK) inhabitant enjoying his
fireworks display tonight:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Fireworks.mp3

:-)

(Dual mono for technical reasons.....)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

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

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/
with an odd statement about methodology.

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.
Well, it's your ball :-)



What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??

:-)


(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)


Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny!



Good sport or *a* good sport? - There's a big difference!

(I'd agree with the former....!! ;-)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote in
message
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be
absolutely clear on these points to accept what you
say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising - you've explained the meaning of questions
of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we
go:
Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)?
Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

100% BS.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in
plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context
passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain. However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to. If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?

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

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments
to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in
desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific
method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my
killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists
('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Rob wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when
I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or
why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what
exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this
reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the
approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what
then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological
arguments to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you
know they're in desperate straits -- nothing less than an
attack on scientific method remains to them. And I know
it it's time to reach for my killfile, because what is
the point with arguing with solipsists ('what I hear is
real to me, and that's enough')?

IOW, the well-known red herring argument. The questions Rob asked raise a
humungious number of issues that have been asked and answered dozens of
times over. If someone were stupid enough to take the bait, there are a
zillion size issues that could be argued, while the important issues were
obfuscated.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the
'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this
technique used many times before and I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in
plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context
passed me by. :-)


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.


Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?


Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.

If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain.

He doesn't want to, and that's fine by me.

However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to.

I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.

If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.


No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?


The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources.

I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. A
bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding
that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of
playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.

And that, as they say, is that.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote in
message

The specific point, and where this thread started, was an
assertion that CD-standard recording captures the whole
LP audio recording for all practical purposes. I had
certain issues with the source of that assertion which
went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music
recording. 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety
any variance in sources.

I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a
test carried out which I think he feels was a good
example of data collection in this context:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables,
respondents.

Didn't find any of that anywhere on that whole web site?

Then you didn't look.

A bunch of people - probably highly skilled
in their field - concluding that they couldn't reliably
hear any difference given two modes of playback. I would
add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Does that require discussion of all those things you questioned?

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX
site to something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I
wondered what that methodology was all about. Arny
wouldn't tell me.

I would, if I thought that you weren't trolling.