What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 10:48:46 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter blind
faith in what little science you think you know.

Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.

I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I
have are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Andy Evans wrote:

What I object to are the "objectivists" insisting that their chosen
rationale is the only one and (even worse) failing to follow it
themselves in their chosen hi-fi equipment.

You'll never escape this with engineers - to the engineer the
scientific method "is" the only one. You can see the point - it did
produce science as we know it.

In terms of the scientific method, if it ain't proved, it
subjectivist.

Not entirely.

If the 'subjectivist' can produce a decent working hypothesis for some
process that in this case might explain why cables allegedly sound
different, any reasoanble scientist would be happy to examine it. Provided
of course that it's not merely some quasi-religious belief based on the use
of made-up words like the Monster cable etc nonsense that any fool ought to
be able to see for the outright FRAUD that it is.

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Malcolm wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter blind
faith in what little science you think you know.

Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.

I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I
have are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.

So you appear to be arguing the case for interconnect cable differences
based not only on ignorance of the science but based on an absense of any
experience of the subject too !

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:59:11 -0800, Andy Evans wrote:

�What I object to are the "objectivists" insisting that their chosen
rationale is the only one and (even worse) failing to follow it
themselves in their chosen hi-fi equipment.

You'll never escape this with engineers - to the engineer the scientific
method "is" the only one. You can see the point - it did produce science
as we know it.


The irony is that in one sense I am an engineer - I have a degree in
Electrical Engineering (and another in Psychology). And I agree about
the science - or more accurately the scientific method - it's possibly
mankind's greatest achievement. However, science has it's limits and
when it tries to correlate an inner aesthetic with measurements, then
things start to get a little tricky.

In terms of the scientific method, if it ain't proved, it subjectivist.

But, the subjectivists argue, how can you "prove" aesthetics, taste, or
simple listening preference. And the musician says "do I really need an
engineer to tell me what's music and what aint?"

Ah, says the engineer, music is art but its reproduction is engineering.

"Still sounds exactly like music to me except it comes out of
loudspeakers, says the musician - I trust my ears to tell me what an
oboe and a basson sounds like, more than a machine that goes bleep and
produces fractions"

Ah, says the engineer, the machine that goes bleep doesn't smoke joints,
go through a bottle of red in a listening session and feel better when
its mates are over for a curry.........

Reminds me of the definition of a drummer:

"A drummer is somebody who is jealous of a drum machine because it can
play in 7/4 without taking cocaine"

Agree totally with your "analysis(!)" above.

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:17:40 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter
blind
faith in what little science you think you know.

Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.

I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I have
are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.

So you appear to be arguing the case for interconnect cable differences
based not only on ignorance of the science but based on an absense of
any experience of the subject too !

Graham

You're delusional. I've never made any case for interconnect cable
differences except in your demented mind.

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:17:40 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter
blind
faith in what little science you think you know.
Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.
I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I have
are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.
So you appear to be arguing the case for interconnect cable differences
based not only on ignorance of the science but based on an absense of
any experience of the subject too !

Graham

You're delusional. I've never made any case for interconnect cable
differences except in your demented mind.

Malcolm

What did you mean then when you wrote this?
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...8b8f1293f5fe31

--
Eiron.

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Malcolm wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:59:11 -0800, Andy Evans wrote:

�What I object to are the "objectivists" insisting that their chosen
rationale is the only one and (even worse) failing to follow it
themselves in their chosen hi-fi equipment.

You'll never escape this with engineers - to the engineer the scientific
method "is" the only one. You can see the point - it did produce science
as we know it.


The irony is that in one sense I am an engineer - I have a degree in
Electrical Engineering (and another in Psychology). And I agree about
the science - or more accurately the scientific method - it's possibly
mankind's greatest achievement. However, science has it's limits and
when it tries to correlate an inner aesthetic with measurements, then
things start to get a little tricky.

Science is totally capable of showing that a cable is totally linear (without
distortion) doesn't add noise or hum and passes all frequencies equally.

If it can do that, how can cables sound different ?

Graham

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter
blind faith in what little science you think you know.

Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.

I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I have
are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.

So you appear to be arguing the case for interconnect cable differences
based not only on ignorance of the science but based on an absense of
any experience of the subject too !

Graham

You're delusional. I've never made any case for interconnect cable
differences except in your demented mind.

What's this then if not a case for 'magic cables' and subjectivism ?


[Graham]
Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment
interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ?

[Malcolm]
I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care
(since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to
make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth,
perceptions, hearing etc etc. If you want to choose on the basis of
electrical specifications, that's fine by me. If Joe Bloggs wants to
choose by a listening test of some sort, that's fine by me also. Your
chosen method will be wrong in Joe Blogg's eyes (or rather ears) and
vice versa. As you're both happy with your choice, what's the problem?

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:42:41 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:17:40 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

The only gullible person around here is yourself with an utter
blind
faith in what little science you think you know.
Have a look in the archives for Glenn Richards. You two would get on
well together, comparing price tags on your interconnects.
I haven't a clue why you wrote that. As I pointed out to you before,
I've never bothered to do any interconnect comparisons. The ones I
have are the ones supplied by the manufacturer of the pre/power amp
combination that I have.
So you appear to be arguing the case for interconnect cable
differences based not only on ignorance of the science but based on an
absense of any experience of the subject too !

Graham

You're delusional. I've never made any case for interconnect cable
differences except in your demented mind.

Malcolm

What did you mean then when you wrote this?
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.re...8b8f1293f5fe31

I meant exactly what I wrote. Nowhere in there do I say that
expensive interconnects are better than cheap ones or vice versa.

and in fact specifically in response to the question

"Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment
interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ?"

I responded

"I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care
(since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to
make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth,
perceptions, hearing etc etc. If you want to choose on the basis of
electrical specifications, that's fine by me. If Joe Bloggs wants to
choose by a listening test of some sort, that's fine by me also. Your
chosen method will be wrong in Joe Blogg's eyes (or rather ears) and
vice versa. As you're both happy with your choice, what's the problem?"

If anyone thinks that the above is "making the case for interconnect
differences", then they are living on planet Zog

Malcolm

What a sad excuse for a group this is...
 

In article , Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrel
scribeth thus


Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

You're 100% mistaken if you think you hearing hears things the same from
one day (or even hour) to the next. What you heard on any given occasion
may nor be readily reproducible. So 'belief' does come into it.

For heaven's sake, even you *mood* can affect how you hear things ! It
certainly can with me.

The point I'm making is is that your hearing is unreliable. It can play
tricks on you. And that's the primary problem with subjectivism.

Graham

If your hearing is as bad as you suggest, you should stick to a £10
transistor radio for you listening enjoyment. Leave the hi-fi stuff to
those of us with rather more aural discernment.

That's a very silly suggestion.

A £10 transistor radio is measurably hoplessly inferior to any form of hi-fi.

Graham

Well spend a few quid more on a DAB one as the BBC tell us its perfick
digital sound;!...
--
Tony Sayer