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

Malcolm wrote:

Eiron wrote:
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.

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.

I haven't seen you query the fact either. Indeed you asserted that subjective
judegements would be the way to go.

You will find that apologists for snake oil products get short shrift here.

Graham

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

In article ,
Malcolm 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.

At the end of the day there's a simple answer. If you really can hear
these differences you claim then you should be able to demonstrate them
reliably to others in proper tests. But of course no one ever can.

--
*Gaffer tape - The Force, light and dark sides - holds the universe together*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

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

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.

Scientists don't mind subjective results. As long as they're
repeatable, they can have great fun trying to find out why.

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

In article
,
Andy Evans wrote:
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.........

The other snag of relying on a 'musician' for what an instrument sounds
like is that he's more often than not not actually hearing them from the
listening position. And also may have an ideal what perhaps a violin etc
should sound like and expects an 'inferior' instrument to be somehow
improved by the recording process.

Musicians are no different from ordinary mortals in knowing what sounds
as close as possible to the original - despite what those in awe of them
may think.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:53:39 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

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?


You clearly have some sort of reading comprehension difficulties if you
can read the above as "making a case for magic cables". I merely describe
two opposing points of view and pass no comment about the merits of
either case - except to say that if both people with opposing points
of view are happy with their decisions, why worry?

In view of your inability to understand simple English, further
discussion with you is pointless.

Malcolm



Malcolm

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

In article , 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.

I am not quite clear what you may mean by making such a sweeping and
unspecific assertion, but I assume it would depend on what is being
investigated, and by what methods...

There is no need to try to "correlate an inner aesthetic judgement with
measurements" if the concern is to see if two items or components do, or do
not, actually result in an audible difference. The experiment is then not
to see which might be 'preferred', or make any judgement on that. Simply to
see if the listener can actually hear a difference.

Ditto if you wish to determine if a change of something like a cable, or
amplifier, or player, etc, makes any audible difference.

The problem is that although people in reviews and elsewhere often
pronounce that one system/item 'sounds better/different' to another, they
generally do so without providing any evidence that what they percieved
*was* for the reasons they assert/assume. This in a context where various
controlled comparison tests indicate that people may fail to be able
to distinguish one item from another by sound alone. Also that they can
easily mistake the reason for a percieved 'difference'.

Of course, it is also possible to do work using the scientific and
experimental methods that *do* relate to trying to "correlate an
inner aesthetic with measurements." For example, you can do tests
to see if given individuals show a correlation between a preference
or stated level of enjoyment against, say, simple forms of nonlinear
alteration or changes in frequency response, or various other factors.
But there is little point in this if evidence shows that they can't
actually tell one situation from the other, regardless of feeling that
they can. So the snag here is that various claims which people have
made either conflict with the assessable evidence, or are based on
them failing to engage in any experiment that would test if they
can hear the difference they claim, or that they arise for the
reasons they assert. :-)


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

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

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:41:57 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-)

Isn't the basis of scientific method to suspect a conclusion then
design experiments to disprove it? If experiments fail to demolish
the conclusion, it stands until successfully challanged.

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

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:41:57 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-)


Isn't the basis of scientific method to suspect a conclusion then
design experiments to disprove it? If experiments fail to demolish
the conclusion, it stands until successfully challanged.

No, not as such. The conclusion has to follow prior evidence, that it
explains better than previous conclusions. Where better means it
explains more of the evidence, and allows the creation of new
predictions and experiments that can prove the predistions.

It also has to be repeatable.

I am sure Jim will give a better definition, but I think the above is
nearer.

--
Nick

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
Well spend a few quid more on a DAB one as the BBC tell us its perfick
digital sound;!...

I had quite a crowd round for Xmas day with the deal being each couple
provided one of the courses. ;-)

So the kitchen was used heavily by different people from fairly early on.
Magic Radio was blasting out from the LS 3/5A there as that's what most
seemed to want and no-one said 'could you please change it to FM from DAB'
despite all having fairly decent systems at home.

I know it's similar to Keith G's postman or whatever but what the hell.

--
*All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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

It might be worth giving this old chestnut an airing again!

http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk/images/flower.jpg


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie