On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

Damned straight.

There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Same general experiment with other tube equipment yielded the same
general results. It was an oddball that I used as my base, I am
trying to remember if it was a Fisher or a Kenwood... goes back a few
years and they do run together. It did surprise me that there would
even be electrolytics of that low value in a tube circuit in those
functions.

Wheel invention... have you ever been a parent? Could anyone tell you
anything in the beginning? Books on the psychology of parenting are a
20th century phenomenon. Human nature is to gather theory from books
and general learning and practical experience from direct
participation. Example: Can you walk away from a "Wet Paint" sign
without checking?

Capitals: Holy Writ is not equal to holy writ. Much as Catholic is not
equal to catholic. And Proper Names of objects whether animate or not
demand capitals to be set off from generics.

Attitude: Yes, I find attitude to be an issue. And I find facts to be
quite lovely with or without a leavening of attitude. But I find that
using facts as a D9 high-wheel to bulldoze preference to be poisonous.
Example: I am quite aware of the limitations and imperfections of
vinyl. And tape. And badly handled CDs for that matter. But that does
not mean that I cannot and do not choose to listen to vinyl sometimes
with great pleasure. Or tape. Somehow badly handled CDs sound to me
like nails on a blackboard, so those get short shrift... as would any
similar medium causing the same reaction. But CDs *seem* to be more-so
that way.

Facts and Technical Underpinning:

There was a school of scientists who used Fetal Recapitulation as
proof positive that there was no Creation in the biblical sense and no
God. Another school offered it exactly as absolute proof as only God
could create so elegant a process. And as a funny aside, neither
school addressed the place of recapitulation as it applies (might
apply) to evolutionary theory. In either case, the facts of
recapitulation were not at issue. What they meant were.

Objectivists and Subjectivists:

If (you may choose not to accept this analogy, of course) Human Beings
are omniverous hunter-gatherers, consider Hunters and Gatherers.
Hunters spend much of their time focused on the north end of a south-
bound deer in order to kill it and eat it. Success is measured by the
size of the belly just now. Gatherers tend to have relationships with
their food in order to learn its habits, behaviors, locations, uses,
dangers... Success is measured by the number of days survival is
assured. Does that look even a little bit like the relationship
between Objectivists and Subjectivists?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


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













..

On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"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"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.

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.

Evidently you are not familiar with Clarke's Laws.

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?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

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.

Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

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

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

On Sep 7, 2:26 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

Nah, just general rudeness.

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

Sure. No problem there.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

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

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

I was biting my tongue.

Jenn said:

Jenn quoted TurdBorg thusly:

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

Krooglish is a nasty business, or was your point something else?

I was biting my tongue.

Arnii used to boast about being a hypocrite. He bought into the delusion
that hanging around a church on Sundays washed away his ****tiness.

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

Damned straight.

There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.


There's an axiom about audiophiles and their wives' hearing in there somewhere.

Anyway, given the effects you think you heard, do you suppose they could have
been meausured? I'm thinking 'tubbier bass' must manifest in a frequency spectrum
analysis of the output.


Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Again, you drew a cause and effect conclusion without actually
testing the hypothesis rigorously. You mgith be right, that those
caps made a real, audible difference. But you certainly haven't ruled out
other possible causes, some of which are entirely psychiological.

I presume from what you've written previously, though, that you're willing
to admit you might have been imagining the improvement -- right?


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

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 7, 3:21 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"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"?

Do you need a definition of Holy Writ? It is received wisdom taken
without question or test because it must be. Newton's laws may be
tested (as far as they go) and proven (again as far as they go). And
then tested again, and again, and... HEY, it ain't necessarily so!!!
Were they _always_ taken as Writ, Einstein would have been dead in the
water, amongst others.


All scientific facts are provisional. If you understand what science is, you understand
that. And further, it's better for scientific claims to be testable, than not. And untestable
claim about hte natural world is arguably not scientific at all.

However, it isn't possible to *personally* test every scientific fact -- nor necessary
to reinvent the wheel every day. So, does that make belief in any given
fact, an example of accepting 'holy writ' (I refuse to indulge your passion for
capitalization, sorry).


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?

Where would you get this? Again, it may be tested and proven. As many
times as one would like until... maybe something new is discovered out
of it. And, then, perhaps one day expanded as Newton was expanded.

And what, in audio, cannot be 'tested and proven'?



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

On Sep 7, 4:49 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:





On Sep 7, 2:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Here's a claim of mine: people tend to overestimate their ability accurately
establish cause and effect.
Damned straight.
There is the anecdote of the sweet little old lady on the Titanic who
pushed the Call Purser button at the same moment the ship hit the
iceberg. Many years later, she still believed she hit the Emergency
Brake by accident.
As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

There's an axiom about audiophiles and their wives' hearing in there somewhere.

Anyway, given the effects you think you heard, do you suppose they could have
been meausured? I'm thinking 'tubbier bass' must manifest in a frequency spectrum
analysis of the output.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Again, you drew a cause and effect conclusion without actually
testing the hypothesis rigorously. You mgith be right, that those
caps made a real, audible difference. But you certainly haven't ruled out
other possible causes, some of which are entirely psychiological.

I presume from what you've written previously, though, that you're willing
to admit you might have been imagining the improvement -- right?

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

- Show quoted text -

I am sure that the improvement is measurable. And if not, I would be
the first to admit that it could well be my imagination. Some
artifacts are pretty subtle, and so may be around the margins of
measurability. These were definitely definite to my hearing... so well
"inside" the margins. If not measurable then imagined for sure given
my perceived difference.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338