In article ,
bcoombes
bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote:
MartinR wrote:
Original article at@

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06


Audiophoolery

by Ethan Winer

YOU MIGHT THINK ..snip

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points, however
underlying it is a kind of unspoken assumption that everything is known
about audio recording/reproduction and everything is known about the
mechanics of the human ear/mind..how and the way we hear..

That isn't my interpretation.

The basic assumption usually in science is as Arny has already outlined. In
essence it means there isn't a binary divide between "we know everything"
and "we know nothing". So you don't (scientifically) dismiss something on
the basis that "we don't know everything".

Thus we can reach conclusions on the basis of what we know, having made
fair efforts to ensure we haven't excluded what relevant evidence.

Of course everything isn't known about these things, not by a long shot.

I note you make the assertion, but provide no evidence - or even define
your terms in context. However even if your claim is formally correct that
isn't in itself really a basis for dismissing the ideas in the original
posting. If your complaint is that "we don't know everything" then no
alternative ideas you present could be accepted either as we would still
(by your own argument) not know other things that could show you were wrong
and the initial idea was correct.

Instead you'd have to show checkable evidence for some *significant*
factors genuinely having been omittted that would change the conclusions.
Then alter our ideas if that evidence was found to be reliable when
scrutinised or checked/repeated.

So if you have evidence which others can assess, present it. That could
then be considered to see if it provides a basis for rejecting the original
arguments.

Above said, I do think there are likely to be other factors at work. But
that personal opinion does not mean I can simply dismiss the original ideas
out of hand.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
MartinR wrote:
Original article at@

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06


Audiophoolery

by Ethan Winer

YOU MIGHT THINK ..snip

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points,
however underlying it is a kind of unspoken assumption
that everything is known about audio
recording/reproduction and everything is known about the
mechanics of the human ear/mind..how and the way we
hear..Of course everything isn't known about these
things, not by a long shot.

I'd call this projection, partially because I know Ethan
personally, but also because know his other work, and
know for sure that he has none of the illusions just
unjustly imputed to him.

People who argue against audiophool myths get this sort
of libelous attack not infrequently. The wording
changes a little.

Note that nobody seems to be admitting that a mistake was made. No matter
what posturing follows, a false claim was made that Ethan was guilty of
making the "...unspoken assumption that everything is known about audio
recording/reproduction and everything is known about the mechanics of the
human ear/mind ."

Well I've got more to say about this in due course but to
say that what I posted is libelous is patently
ridiculous and indicates a *very* thin skin.

Nice job of picking yet another fight in order to avoid agreeing that a
mistake was made.

"Ian Jackson"
wrote in message
In message
, Arny
Krueger writes
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
MartinR wrote:
Original article at@

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06


Audiophoolery

by Ethan Winer

YOU MIGHT THINK ..snip

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points,
however underlying it is a kind of unspoken assumption
that everything is known about audio
recording/reproduction and everything is known about the
mechanics of the human ear/mind..how and the way we
hear..Of course everything isn't known about these
things, not by a long shot.

I'd call this projection, partially because I know Ethan
personally, but also because know his other work, and
know for sure that he has none of the illusions just
unjustly imputed to him. People who argue against audiophool myths get
this sort
of libeleous attack not infrequently. The wording
changes a little.

Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld's 'Known Unknowns'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxqUDd4fiw&feature=related

[Although it is very funny, if you follow what he says,
he actually does make sense!]

The gratuitous laugh track says it all. There's no search for truth, just
childish redicule. Note, I'm not exactly a Rumsfield fan.

The flow of the discussion is pretty clear. Someone whined one of the usual
audiophool whines that we debunkers of audiophool myth get all the time.
Instead of th guilty party manning up, a lame attempt is made to turn it all
into a big joke.

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Of course everything isn't known about these
things, not by a long shot.

A simple truism. Since it is always true, it serves only to create the
appearance of what is not - an honest look at reliable evidence.

On 6 Jan, 10:48, bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote:
MartinR wrote:
Original article at@

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-01-06

Audiophoolery

by Ethan Winer

YOU MIGHT THINK ..snip

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points, however underlying it is
a kind of unspoken assumption that everything is known about audio
recording/reproduction and everything is known about the mechanics of the human
ear/mind..how and the way we hear..Of course everything isn't known about these
things, not by a long shot.

Agreed, many judgements are qualitative and there must be a sort of
placebo effect. Who would spend £200 on a power lead and then say it
made no difference without looking a complete pratt.

MR

In article , Arny
Krueger


Sounds like Donald Rumsfeld's 'Known Unknowns'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxqUDd4fiw&feature=related

[Although it is very funny, if you follow what he says, he actually
does make sense!]

The gratuitous laugh track says it all. There's no search for truth,
just childish redicule. Note, I'm not exactly a Rumsfield fan.

There was a similar case in the UK media some years ago. In that case a
footballer made a comment seagulls following trawlers. The media rediculed
this as meaningless. But it was easy to read it quite clearly as a portrait
of the journalists and their behaviour.

i.e. Trailing after people doing real work, being a pest and a scavenger,
and exploiting them for their own advantage. Presumably also making loud
and meangnless noises. :-)

In effect the footballer was commenting on how badly the journalists
behaved. Can only wonder if they actually understood, but chose to pretend
they didn't. Or if they were as clueless as their reactions presented. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Phil Allison wrote:
"bcoombes"

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points, however underlying
it is a kind of unspoken assumption...


** Nope.

Only congenital delusional like you think that.

You might want to run that through a grammar checker.

"bcoombes"

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points, however underlying
it is a kind of unspoken assumption...


** Nope.

Only congenital ****WIT delusionals like you think that.

In any case - you are mouthing a classic, logical fallacy.

Based on brainless, emotional thinking, as they all are.

But you are even worse.

A congenital autistic ****wit.



..... Phil

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk

Of course everything isn't known about these
things, not by a long shot.

It serves only to create the appearance of what is not - an honest look at reliable evidence.



You are the one that interpreted that way, it certainly isn't implied, it's
merely a statement of obvious fact.
Here is a quote from the OP's post.

"Only four parameters are needed to define everything that matters for
audio reproduction: Noise, frequency response, distortion, and
timebased errors."

So there you go you see, the OP is saying categorically that he can define
beyond any doubt 'everything that matters' about audio reproduction.
Now any one who thinks that that can be true is in the same boat as medieval
Popes who thought that everything that can be known is in the Bible and if it
isn't then it doesn't exist.

Phil Allison wrote:
"bcoombes"

Interesting article which makes a lot of valid points, however underlying
it is a kind of unspoken assumption...


** Nope.

Only congenital ****WIT delusionals like you think that.

In any case - you are mouthing a classic, logical fallacy.

Based on brainless, emotional thinking, as they all are.

But you are even worse.

A congenital autistic ****wit.


Lessons from Usenet Volume 1.
1. When a poster suspects they are on the bad end of an argument or has one of
their 'cherished' beliefs questioned they often resort to well established but
juvenile tactics.
1. Shout
2. Personal abuse
3. Even better from their retarded point of view..both simultaneously.
Way to go Phil!!