Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
unlikely in this one.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

Externalization on this level is pitiful to see. I really had a lot more
repesct for you than that, Peter.

But it is fascinating to watch you sitting on the outboard side of the
limb and sawing briskly. In your world, as in any cartoon world, the
tree *might* fall with the limb remaining suspended... but that is
unlikely in this one.

Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation. You're the
guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
of cheeks to turn. I recommend something long, tall and cool and maybe a
week away from Usenet, until you can settle down.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On 7 Sep, 14:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.


Maybe George wants it!

Why "accuracy"?
 

On 7 Sep, 17:11, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"
You're the
guy who threw the first, second, third, and fourth stones. I simply ran out
of cheeks to turn.

that's right, you have four of them.

Why "accuracy"?
 

The Krooborg spews some therapy-babble.

Obviously Peter, when you embarrass and humiliate yourself in public, you
lash out at the people who you blame for your self-humiliation.

Arnii, does your therapist know about that study that chilled Dr. Melfi?

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ.


Again, this is more rhetoric than substance. How do you distinguish 'Holy Writ'
from other modes of rhetoric? Is stating an accepted scientific fact 'foisting
Holy Writ'? Where is the line drawn for you?


I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone.

Are you 'closely held beliefs' peculiar to you, or are any of them closely held
by others too?

And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So, would you say it come down to *attitude*, rather than facts behind
the argument? (personally, I find arguments that employ Capitals
for Emphasis to be rather Off-Putting and Pretentious)


I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
whatever is the final target environment.


And what makes you think blind testing *can't* do that? If long-term
listening in the target environment is required to 'imprint' the *real*
audibole differences on a person -- which is waht you seem to imply -
what 'problems' does a blind test done *after the imprinting has occurred*
have?

This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed.


It is a hobby with a notably technical underpinning. That may be why
subjective preferences so often bleed into technical claims, in the hobby.


for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
opportunity.

Are the cable faithful really being denied opportunity to sing hosanna?
Seems to me it's *objectivists* who are in teh minority, in the usual audio
forums. They're the 'atheists', after all. The mainstream is 'religious',
in audiophile cutlure as in wider culture.

In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.

But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.

No one can 'make' you sing any of these tunes, so your fears seem
more than a bit overblown.

Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
respect.

And to trot out another cliche, there's no need to reinvent the wheel.
Some things really *don't* need to be argued about.

Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.

Again, you disagree with attitude and rhetoric.

As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:

a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
in solid-state and tube circuits.

They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.

As stated, I would find them both merely anecdotal, with all that implies.
Were you to expand on the nature of the 'experiments', and bring in other
facts to bear, I might 'upgrade' them.

Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately establish cause
and effect.



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

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise. No leap of faith required there.

Audio forum evidence strongly suggests that many an 'audiophile' has found the Nyquist-Shannon
theorem and its consequences for audio, to be anything but intuitive, clear , or
understandable.


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

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.

Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing them?


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

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

So Peter, do you consider say, Newton's laws of motion to be "Holy Writ"?

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world.

All progress in this world is so dependent on the basic laws and principles
of science and technology that anybody who acts on their opinions in
violation of them is doomed to failure.

Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world.

People who act in contradiction with the basic laws and principles of
science would be responsible for far more pain, were not the basic laws and
principles to stop them in their tracks.

I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

So Peter you want us to believe that Shannon's Information theory is an
example of Holy Writ, and in in fact a mere aphorism?

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information.

Apparently not often enough Peter, or you wouldn't be the center of this
public debacle you've gotten yourself into.

As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things.

Apparently Peter, you don't learn well enough! Your recent bogus musings
about Information Theory being a case in point.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 7:16 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter
how
hard you try.

Arny:

Ain't none of us ever going to expect that of you no way, no how. Your
head is impenetrable to anything other than your closely held beliefs
and the noise that supports them.

hmmm...that sounds like a closely-held belief of yours.

Why not admit you have them, and aren't particularly afraid of voicing
them?


In fact there is nothing at all wrong with closely-held beliefs, as long as
they are correct and you apply them correctly.

I've got Peter pegged for someone who would rather be right than correct.