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"