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

"Andy Evans" wrote in
message


I think there's a gulf between those who buy equipment
and those that build it.

Those that build use whatever is in the drawer in terms
of wire, connectors, chassis etc. What's important to
them is the design, layout and part selection.

You just contradicted yourself, Andy. You first said that those who build
are not choosy about part selection, and then you said that part selection
is important to them.

As far as "whatever is in the drawer" goes, one simply doesn't put junk in
one's parts drawers.

Those that don't live with a bench and a warm soldering
iron do whatever is left for them to do - change cables,
tubes, interconnects, stands and little wooden feet.

Thus ignoring that proficiency with a soldering iron is not required to deal
with important issues like room acoustics.

Because they are equally intelligent and musical, they
create what is within their capacity to create, and then
judge the results.

The equal intelligent claim fails on the grounds that intelligence is an
individual property.

Hence the whole culture of cables,
tweaks etc.

Which is based on ignorance, some of it willful.

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

"borosteve" wrote in message


What do you mean by "work with audio"?

When I say I work with audio, I mean that I:

Am an audiophile
Setup and mix live sound
Record stereo and multitrack
Design, build and repair audio equipment

Do you mean people
who use audio in their work? i.e.musicians,producers
etc?

Yes.

Or do you mean people that repair equipment, like a
service engineer?

It's not necesarily an either/or

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

Malcolm wrote:

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

The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is
anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific
"fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to
agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we
are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an
overblown faith in technology.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.

We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear.

What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief"
involved.

So which is 'correct' ? What you hear under the influence of mind-altering
substances (could be naturally occuring such as endorphins ) or what you hear
when not under the influence ?

They WIL be different !

Everything you hear is a 'belief'. It's processed by your brain and the brain
can alter it.

Spending money can affect your objectivity too.

Graham

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

Malcolm 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.

What do you believe our rationale is ?

If being able to avoid purchasing snake oil products is one of them, then I'm
pleased to share my objectivity with you.

Graham

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

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:18:01 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

[snip]

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.

Malcolm

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

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 13:23:40 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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


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.

Yet there is nothing about those high price cables that is capable of
making them any better ! That's why the makers have to resort to
pseudo-science to explain why you should buy one.

It is a simple fact that a conductor is a conductor is a conductor.
There is no such thing as copper that sounds better. Any suggestion
otherwsie is .... well fraudulent actually. The ONLY thing that can
affect interconnect performance is cable capacitance and that's simply
determined by physical construction such as the distance between
conductors (conductor and screen typically). And typical cable
capacitance is simply not going to make an audible effect with modern
well-designed equipment.

Your gullibility is distressing to me.

Graham


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

Malcolm

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

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

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

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

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


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.

Yet there is nothing about those high price cables that is capable of
making them any better ! That's why the makers have to resort to
pseudo-science to explain why you should buy one.

It is a simple fact that a conductor is a conductor is a conductor.
There is no such thing as copper that sounds better. Any suggestion
otherwsie is .... well fraudulent actually. The ONLY thing that can
affect interconnect performance is cable capacitance and that's simply
determined by physical construction such as the distance between
conductors (conductor and screen typically). And typical cable
capacitance is simply not going to make an audible effect with modern
well-designed equipment.

Your gullibility is distressing to me.

Graham

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

Tell me more about this 'magic copper' you must apparently believe in.

I say believe since clearly you have no understanding of science so have
replaced it with a belief system. (a.k.a religion) that you imagine
transcends science.

I repeat. There is no conceivable way in which an interconnect cable can
perfrom differently based on the cost of the packaging and marketing (the
materials used are all the same such as PVC and copper).

Oh actually there is .... The cost can bias you to *imagine* that the
contents are superior. And your brain, thus enthused, can translate this into
*imagining* a superior sound. That's why we frown on subjectivism here.

Graham

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

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.

--
Eiron.

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

�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.

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"

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

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

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

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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.

Well perhaps they were being polite;)...

--
Tony Sayer

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.



Plowie's had my postman round for dinner? (How sweet - I like to see the
'lower orders' enjoying themselves! :-)

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

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

Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing 'golden oldie'
style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Graham

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
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.

Well perhaps they were being polite;)...

You don't know them, then?

--
*Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional *

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

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

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:


Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing 'golden
oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Indeed. I hesitated from calling them Magic FM since we were listening on
DAB and it would confuse some. Which it has anyway.

But they play a fair amount of up to date stuff too - but in a style of
the 60s/70s, I suppose.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

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

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

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing 'golden
oldie'
style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749



Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install itself and
listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it said)!

Hideous.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing 'golden
oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Indeed. I hesitated from calling them Magic FM since we were listening on
DAB and it would confuse some. Which it has anyway.

But they play a fair amount of up to date stuff too - but in a style of
the 60s/70s, I suppose.

You're familiar with J Clarkson's admissions about listening to Magic ?

Graham

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

Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing 'golden
oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install itself and
listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it said)!

Hideous.

Like your speakers ! ;~)

You are truly not of this period of time are you ? Your ages isn't 106 by any
chance is it ?

Graham

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

In article ,
Keith G wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing
'golden oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749



Thank you for that - clicked it, allowed 'Active X' to install itself
and listened to about 5 seconds of crap (Commodores - Still it said)!

Hideous.

You actually expect to like every single record a radio station plays?
You'll have to start your own one...

--
*Rehab is for quitters.

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

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

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

(WTF is 'Magic Radio'..??)

Maybe Magic FM may seem more familiar ? It's famous for playing
'golden oldie' style popular music.

http://www.magic.co.uk/sectional.asp?id=18749

Indeed. I hesitated from calling them Magic FM since we were listening
on DAB and it would confuse some. Which it has anyway.

But they play a fair amount of up to date stuff too - but in a style
of the 60s/70s, I suppose.

You're familiar with J Clarkson's admissions about listening to Magic ?

Indeed. You have to be rich to be allowed to listen to it. ;-)

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

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