MartinR wrote:
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

Well not me for sure

and then say it made no difference without looking a complete pratt.

There is a whole category of people who are so rich that £200 is an utterly
inconsequential sum of money. They'd buy said power cable on the off chance that
it *might* make a difference and then admit unashamedly that it didn't.
Wish I was one of them.

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Phil Allison wrote:

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.

2. Personal abuse

IOW make up silly false claims about what Ethan thinks. Since Ethan's name
was clearly mentioned in the thread as the object of this abuse, it was
personal.

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

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.

2. Personal abuse

IOW make up silly false claims about what Ethan thinks. Since Ethan's name
was clearly mentioned in the thread as the object of this abuse, it was
personal.



Original quote from bcoombes post.

"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."

So how's that abuse then?

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

There is a whole category of people who are so rich that
£200 is an utterly inconsequential sum of money.

Given that I live in an affuent suburb among affluent suburbs I'm very
famiar with the preferences and the habits of people for whom "...£200 is
an utterly inconsequential sum of money."

Even though £200 or its equivalent in Obama-dollars is not consequential,
they'd rather die than spend it needlessly.

The fallacy here is the weird idea that if the people who are being cheated
can somehow afford to be cheated, then its not so bad for them to get
cheated.

In short, class warfare.

They'd
buy said power cable on the off chance that it *might*
make a difference and then admit unashamedly that it
didn't.

Actually, if people like this even smell a hint of a scam, they avoid it
like the plague.

Wish I was one of them.

Its actually mostly wannabee rich people who fall for scams like this.

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message

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

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.

2. Personal abuse

IOW make up silly false claims about what Ethan thinks.
Since Ethan's name was clearly mentioned in the thread
as the object of this abuse, it was personal.



Original quote from bcoombes post.

"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."

So how's that abuse then?

You forced some dumb words you made up into Ethan's mouth. It's about as
close to waterboarding as one can get on Usenet.

Given that Ethan and I have known each other for years, occasionally meet
face-to-face despite the distance between our homes, and have work together
on some things from time to time, taking offence on his part is not the
least bit disingenuous for me.

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

There is a whole category of people who are so rich that
£200 is an utterly inconsequential sum of money.

Given that I live in an affuent suburb among affluent suburbs I'm very
famiar with the preferences and the habits of people for whom "...£200 is
an utterly inconsequential sum of money."

The people I'm talking about don't live in suburbs Arny, they alternate between
their penthouses and their private yachts. (Having a friend who was a marine
engineer and worked for them I've been on said yachts and met such people)


Even though £200 or its equivalent in Obama-dollars is not consequential,
they'd rather die than spend it needlessly.

Well your 'suburban' friends probably would.

The fallacy here is the weird idea that if the people who are being cheated
can somehow afford to be cheated, then its not so bad for them to get
cheated.

That's just a fabrication of your mind Arny.


They'd
buy said power cable on the off chance that it *might*
make a difference and then admit unashamedly that it
didn't.

Actually, if people like this even smell a hint of a scam, they avoid it
like the plague.

They wouldn't give a **** because £200 is much less than they'd spend on a
bottle of wine in a restaurant.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message
o.uk
Phil Allison wrote:
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.
2. Personal abuse
IOW make up silly false claims about what Ethan thinks.
Since Ethan's name was clearly mentioned in the thread
as the object of this abuse, it was personal.


Original quote from bcoombes post.

"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."

So how's that abuse then?

You forced some dumb words you made up into Ethan's mouth. It's about as
close to waterboarding as one can get on Usenet.

You need to take a reality check.

Given that Ethan and I have known each other for years, occasionally meet
face-to-face despite the distance between our homes, and have work together
on some things from time to time, taking offence on his part is not the
least bit disingenuous for me.


So you've 'taken offence' because someone disagreed with your buddy huh?
That's really not very mature, on that basis there would rarely be any
discussion about anything

bcoombes bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote:

"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.

Not at all - just that there are four *parameters*, measurables, that
matter.

Given the nature of sound - vibrations in a medium - are there any other
parameters that could affect the quality of its reproduction?

Daniele

MartinR wrote:

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.

Of course they sound great!

But they sound great because people spend £200 on them, and not the
other way round.

Daniele

"bcoombes" bcoombes@orangedotnet wrote in message

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

There is a whole category of people who are so rich that
£200 is an utterly inconsequential sum of money.

Given that I live in an affuent suburb among affluent
suburbs I'm very famiar with the preferences and the
habits of people for whom "...£200 is an utterly
inconsequential sum of money."

The people I'm talking about don't live in suburbs Arny,
they alternate between their penthouses and their private
yachts. (Having a friend who was a marine engineer and
worked for them I've been on said yachts and met such
people)

Interesting how you zig and zag to avoid admitting a simple mistake.

Long story short, the suburbs I'm talking about host said penthouses other
equally sumptious dwesslings, and lots of yachts.

Even though £200 or its equivalent in Obama-dollars is
not consequential, they'd rather die than spend it
needlessly.

Well your 'suburban' friends probably would.

Your cluelessness is showing.

The fallacy here is the weird idea that if the people
who are being cheated can somehow afford to be cheated,
then its not so bad for them to get cheated.

That's just a fabrication of your mind Arny.

Interesting how you zig and zag an pose to avoid admitting a simple mistake.

They'd
buy said power cable on the off chance that it *might*
make a difference and then admit unashamedly that it
didn't.

Actually, if people like this even smell a hint of a
scam, they avoid it like the plague.

They wouldn't give a **** because £200 is much less than
they'd spend on a bottle of wine in a restaurant.

You're wrong about that. For £200 or its equivalent in Obama-dollars spent
intelligently, at least the wine tastes different (and having tasted some of
it myself, actually quite nice).