Recommended budget wires for Aerial
Steve Zipser
you take a good look at the PASS Labs X-5 amplifier, Aragon, or the EAD
PowerMaster amplifiers. These are bonified high-quality MUSIC amplifiers
that just happen to have five channels, and if you get the Aerial 10T's,
they are just too good for a Sunfire or an ATI.
Just my two cents!
Cheers & happy listening,
Zip
As for cabling - read this
To those who are not sure what to do about cables in your audio system,
here is SOUND ADVICE!
There are some droids here on r.a.o, who are convinced that wires make
no difference at all like Ostriches with their heads buried in the sand,
and there are some tweakos who believe in water filled jacketed, 30
pound aluminum block Terminator cables and the like as they dance and
prance and howl at the moon.
The truth is somewhere in between. Wires do make a difference, and
there is absolutely no doubt about that. On the other hand, they are
not the be-all, end-all solution that some of the more ardent
audiophiles would have you believe.
I presume there are some quality dealers in your area, why don't you
visit some of them that you are comfortable with and arrange to borrow
a set or two and listen for yourself.
Your ears are the final arbiter, not some magazine reviewer and not some
computer geek with an abx box and not some maniac that claims wires are
more important than the room acoustics or speakers!
Check out Straightwire, Cardas, Monster Cable, Audioquest, those are all
good brands.
In article <7dbg63$q...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>, you say...
> Speakers:
> Aerial Acoustics 7B,8,or10T mains
> Aerial Acoustics CC3 center
> Aerial Acoustics SR3 surrounds
>
> Amp:
> - Leaning toward bright amp
> - ATI 2505 or Sunfire Cinema Grand
>
> Yes, I know. Krell mono-blocks will do a better
> job. I'll entertain other alternatives which are at
> least close to the prices of the 5-channel amps shown
> above.
>
> Processor:
> - Lexicon DC-1 DTS THX DD
>
> Use:
> - 40% home theater, 60% music
>
> Please recommend matching wires that are considered
> "best-bang-for-your-buck". I can understand the RC
> advantages of a decent cable, but I refuse to pay
> a lot of money on cables (>500.00).
>
> - transparent
> - kimber
> - monster
> - MIT
>
> Thanks, Mark
>
>
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
Gene Steinberg
z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
>To those who are not sure what to do about cables in your audio system,
>here is SOUND ADVICE!
Ignore all the drivel Steve has posted a thousand times in this newsgroup
and buy cheap cables and spend the rest on better speakers or good
recordings.
trotsky
I don't know how it is on your planet, Gene, but on this planet there
are people who refuse to buy anything that can be described as "cheap".
Your advice is offensive and droll, as usual.
P.S. No, I'm not making things up!
Steve Zipser
>
> In article <MPG.116310e2e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
>
> >To those who are not sure what to do about cables in your audio system,
> >here is SOUND ADVICE!
>
> Ignore all the drivel Steve has posted a thousand times in this newsgroup
> and buy cheap cables and spend the rest on better speakers or good
> recordings.
Gene:
Better you spend it on a really big hat ;-)
Zip
Chuck Ross
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <MPG.116310e2e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> z...@sunshinestereo.com (Steve Zipser) wrote:
>
> >To those who are not sure what to do about cables in your audio system,
> >here is SOUND ADVICE!
>
> Ignore all the drivel Steve has posted a thousand times in this newsgroup
> and buy cheap cables and spend the rest on better speakers or good
> recordings.
Ignore all the drivel Gene has posted ten thousand times in this newsgroup,
and stick with good cables! You will be happier, your system will sound
better, and Gene will be mumbling to himself, "Why am I so hated??"
--
Check my photo page at
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross
Gene Steinberg
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>Ignore all the drivel Gene has posted ten thousand times in this newsgroup,
>and stick with good cables!
What is the difference between good cables and bad cables, Chuck? Tell us!
Steve Zipser
gstei...@earthlink.net says...
One that sounds good is a good cable.
One that sounds bad is a bad cable.
One that was connected to the fish hook that caught that thing on your
head is a horrible cable.
Barry Rothman
Gene Steinberg wrote:
>
> In article <ckross-2503...@usrx2-130.chi-focal.enteract.com>,
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
> >Ignore all the drivel Gene has posted ten thousand times in this newsgroup,
> >and stick with good cables!
>
> What is the difference between good cables and bad cables, Chuck? Tell us!
Good ones sound good and bad ones sound bad. Now, wasn't that simple?
Chuck Ross
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <ckross-2503...@usrx2-130.chi-focal.enteract.com>,
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
> >Ignore all the drivel Gene has posted ten thousand times in this newsgroup,
> >and stick with good cables!
>
> What is the difference between good cables and bad cables, Chuck? Tell us!
Well, good cables look good. Bad cables look bad.
Good cables sound good. Bad cables don't.
Good cables cost a little more money than you are willing to spend for
things like cables. Bad cables are cheap; just right for you.
Enuf?
Gene Steinberg
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Good ones sound good and bad ones sound bad. Now, wasn't that simple?
And what is your definition of a bad sounding cable? How do you determine
it is bad (skipping a damaged copy in this description). Ready for you to
fall into a trap here.
And why aren't you going after that $1600 reward if you prove you can tell
one cable apart from the other?
Gene Steinberg
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>Well, good cables look good. Bad cables look bad.
And what is your standard for a bad looking cable?
>
>Good cables sound good. Bad cables don't.
>
And how do you test for this?
Chuck Ross
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
No problem. I listen to the cable. If it sounds bad, it's bad.
If it sounds good, I might like it.
Next question.
Gene Steinberg
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>No problem. I listen to the cable. If it sounds bad, it's bad.
>
>If it sounds good, I might like it.
Sorry you are confusing perception with reality.
And without controls, reality is hard to judge in terms of a listening test.
The Beatific Deathpoodle
: Sorry you are confusing perception with reality.
Since music is about perception, why is that wrong? If for whatever
reason, I can convince myself that said music sounds better, why does it
bother you?
--
Vandit Kalia GO FLYERS!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any fool can make a painting, but it takes a wise man to sell one"
Chuck Ross
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <ckross-2603...@usrx2-153.chi-focal.enteract.com>,
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
> >No problem. I listen to the cable. If it sounds bad, it's bad.
> >
> >If it sounds good, I might like it.
>
> Sorry you are confusing perception with reality.
>
> And without controls, reality is hard to judge in terms of a listening test.
I don't have a problem with it...maybe you do.
Chuck Ross
Deathpoodle) wrote:
> Gene Steinberg (gstei...@earthlink.net) wrote:
> : Sorry you are confusing perception with reality.
>
> Since music is about perception, why is that wrong? If for whatever
> reason, I can convince myself that said music sounds better, why does it
> bother you?
It just bothers him. He just can't stand it when nobody pays any attention.
He's gone through one head of hair already, on his way to tearing out what's
left.
Gene Steinberg
>Since music is about perception, why is that wrong? If for whatever
>reason, I can convince myself that said music sounds better, why does it
>bother you?
We are not arguing preference, but difference. How come you haven't
realized that by now?
Gene Steinberg
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>I don't have a problem with it...maybe you do.
I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
If you don't care, that's your problem.
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gsteinberg-
>I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
Talk to the guy that sold you the hairpiece. He owes you a double refund
;-)
>If you don't care, that's your problem.
Actually, that is your problem. Looked in a mirror lately?
Matt Tulini
> Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gsteinberg-
> >I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
>
> Talk to the guy that sold you the hairpiece. He owes you a double refund
> ;-)
Come on Zip, everyone knows all rugs look the same. ;-)
Matt
Chuck Ross
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <ckross-2603...@usrx2-ns-2-12.chi-focal.enteract.com>,
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
> >I don't have a problem with it...maybe you do.
>
> I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
> If you don't care, that's your problem.
I usualy feel I get my money's worth. Zat ok wid youse?
Chuck Ross
Stereo)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
> Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gsteinberg-
> >I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
>
> Talk to the guy that sold you the hairpiece. He owes you a double refund
> ;-)
>
> >If you don't care, that's your problem.
>
> Actually, that is your problem. Looked in a mirror lately?
AW, c'mon, now....don't comment about a guy's hairpiece. That's
really stooping low. If he wants to look that way, so be it. It's
not something to comment on in civilized social behavior.
Steve Zipser
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" wrote:
>
> > Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gsteinberg-
> > >I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
> >
> > Talk to the guy that sold you the hairpiece. He owes you a double refund
> > ;-)
>
>
> Matt
Is that where they got the term RUG RAT?????? ;-)
Zip
Steve Zipser
ckr...@enteract.com says...
>
> > Gene Steinberg <gstei...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gsteinberg-
> > >I would like to think I'm getting my money's worth when I buy something.
> >
> > Talk to the guy that sold you the hairpiece. He owes you a double refund
> > ;-)
> >
> >
> > Actually, that is your problem. Looked in a mirror lately?
>
> AW, c'mon, now....don't comment about a guy's hairpiece. That's
> really stooping low. If he wants to look that way, so be it. It's
> not something to comment on in civilized social behavior.
>
>
Chuck that was some of the most subtle & brilliant satire I have ever
read here!
Zip
Gene Steinberg
(Leonard) wrote:
>Now the fraternity has new word games...let us delve into
>word games...great and honorable differences between
>DIFFERENCE and PREFERENCE...ABX mumbo-jumbo!
No a description of the lack of understanding of some of the posters here
who seem to be unable to separate one from the other.
None of this is intended to be a great revelation, just a repetition of
things known years ago, although some folks here haven't gotten it yet.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Leonard <lcw...@att.net> wrote:
>Now the fraternity has new word games...let us delve into
>word games...great and honorable differences between
>DIFFERENCE and PREFERENCE...ABX mumbo-jumbo!
you search any basic philosophy book for the distinction.
You may find a long, and (I hope) interesting discussion
on the two, and some other things that may come up along
with them.
Preference is inviolate. You prefer what you prefer, that is,
unless YOU change your mind.
"Difference" is testable and verifiable.
Are you claiming that the two are the same, Leonard?
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Arny Krüger
Leonard wrote in message
<36fe3c8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Now the fraternity has new word games...let us delve into
>word games...great and honorable differences between
>DIFFERENCE and PREFERENCE...ABX mumbo-jumbo!
Leonard, we've established that you are an uncredentialed
know-nothing pretender to secret knowlege like Rothman. Now,
we've got evidence that you never heard of dictionaries.
Fortunately some of us are neither uncredentialed, nor
pretenders, nor ignorant about dictionaries:
pref搪r搪nce n. Abbr. pref. 1.a. The selecting of someone or
something over another or others. b. The right or chance to so
choose. c. Someone or something so chosen. 2. The state of being
preferred
dif搭er搪nce n. Abbr. dif., diff. 1. The quality or condition of
being unlike or dissimilar. 2.a. An instance of disparity or
unlikeness. b. A degree or amount by which things differ. c. A
specific point or element that distinguishes one thing from
another. 3. A noticeable change or effect. 4.a. A disagreement or
controversy. b. A cause of a disagreement or controversy. 5.
Discrimination in taste or choice; distinction.
>Must this crowd state the obvious and attempt to make
>it sound as if there is a new and staggering discovery.
If you call it "mumbo-jumbo" then it must all be "greek" to you.
;-(
>We understand this!...we understand true and false!
I don't think you do. I predict that you could well stage another
of your fights to the death over whether or not preference is
conditioned on reliable determination of there being a
difference.
>Must you drag this drivel up at intervals and promote
>it as "a fundamental truth"...Sick, I say..sick..sick!
I say, personal attack, personal attack, personal attack.
>Ahh, but the dogma must be re-generated at times...
"The dogma" is regenerated early and often by mislead and
misleading folks like yourself.
>This is a strange crowd.
I know that working with people who believe in science, reason,
and skepticism is strange for naive true believers such as
yourself.
Powell
Arny Krüger wrote
>Leonard, we've established that you are an uncredentialed
>know-nothing pretender to secret knowlege like Rothman.
>
I bet, mr no-show?
>Now,
>we've got evidence that you never heard of dictionaries.
>Fortunately some of us are neither uncredentialed, nor
>pretenders, nor ignorant about dictionaries:
>
"knowlege", Arny? Looks like your ignorant about
dictionaries too... hehehe. knowl-edge (nol'ij) n.
>"The dogma" is regenerated early and often by mislead and
>misleading folks like yourself.
>
Quack-quack-quack....
>I know that working with people who believe in science, reason,
>and skepticism is strange for naive true believers such as
>yourself.
>
Hehehe,HAHAHA... mr. no-show, that's really funny!
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Leonard, we've established that you are an uncredentialed
>know-nothing pretender to secret knowlege like Rothman. Now,
>we've got evidence that you never heard of dictionaries.
>Fortunately some of us are neither uncredentialed, nor
>pretenders, nor ignorant about dictionaries:
>
>pref·er·ence n. Abbr. pref. 1.a. The selecting of someone or
>something over another or others. b. The right or chance to so
>choose. c. Someone or something so chosen. 2. The state of being
>preferred
>
>dif·fer·ence n. Abbr. dif., diff. 1. The quality or condition of
>being unlike or dissimilar. 2.a. An instance of disparity or
>unlikeness. b. A degree or amount by which things differ. c. A
>specific point or element that distinguishes one thing from
>another. 3. A noticeable change or effect. 4.a. A disagreement or
>controversy. b. A cause of a disagreement or controversy. 5.
>Discrimination in taste or choice; distinction.
This may not have occurred to you, Arny, but "preference"
always assumes difference. One cannot prefer something without a
comparison, explicit or implied, to something else. Without difference
there can be no preference.
Which is why, in a practical sense, the two words are more
linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference are
inherently comparative.
IF one can make a preference statement, one is simultaneously
saying that xyz is better than abc. If you allow preference
statements, you must allow comparative ones.
Ed
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>"preference" always assumes difference.
And if the difference doesn't exist, which do you prefer?
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
<37072510...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
I think you are preaching to the choir!, But please don't let me
stop you!
(please see
http://x17.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=218485790&CONTEXT
=922791129) for the first mention of this issue I can find on
DN )
> Which is why, in a practical sense, the two words are more
>linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference
are
>inherently comparative.
One very serious problem with Sterephile's "Recommended
Component's List" is that they never reliably establish the
presence of audible differences among the components they rate.
> IF one can make a preference statement, one is simultaneously
>saying that xyz is better than abc. If you allow preference
>statements, you must allow comparative ones.
Agreed, many 100's of times! ;-)
Arny Krüger
Gene Steinberg wrote in message ...
The one from the guy who buys the biggest ads from me? ;-)
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <37072510...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>
>>"preference" always assumes difference.
>
>And if the difference doesn't exist, which do you prefer?
Actually, this is now your problem. Are you saying that
preferences can't be established?
JJ refers to what he calls "gestalt preference." Whether or
not such things are meaningful to you, Gene, preferences occur
regardless. If you allow subjective preference statements, you must
allow implied (and then explicit) subjective comparisons.
OTOH, if you're going to take the position that preference
statements are per se not allowed, what would be the point of ever
discussing anything with you?
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>>
>> This may not have occurred to you, Arny, but "preference"
>>always assumes difference. One cannot prefer something without a
>>comparison, explicit or implied, to something else. Without
>difference
>>there can be no preference.
>
>I think you are preaching to the choir!, But please don't let me
>stop you!
I wasn't trying to start a flame war, nor suggest anything
other than respond to your citing a difference ::grin:: between
preference and difference.
>(please see
>http://x17.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=218485790&CONTEXT
>=922791129) for the first mention of this issue I can find on
>DN )
>
>
>> Which is why, in a practical sense, the two words are more
>>linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference
>are
>>inherently comparative.
>
>One very serious problem with Sterephile's "Recommended
>Component's List" is that they never reliably establish the
>presence of audible differences among the components they rate.
That clouds the issue, Arny. All of this devolves to a
position on the meaningfulness of subjective information.
If preference at the end user level is a reasonable thing (and
I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other than
reasonable) than preference statements are per se allowable, even if
they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than abc." To
say otherwise renders all language and experience irrelevant.
If the above is reasonable (at the end user level, anyway)
than magazines which serve that group are reasonable in dealing within
accepted levels of communication and experience.
>
>
>> IF one can make a preference statement, one is simultaneously
>>saying that xyz is better than abc. If you allow preference
>>statements, you must allow comparative ones.
>
>
>Agreed, many 100's of times! ;-)
Yes, I do know you accept that. In doing so, though, it raises
the issue of how subjective expressions are treated here in RAO. It
becomes contradictory to say on one hand that preference is reasonable
and allowable, and then attack the preference when it's specifically
articulated.
Ed
>
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> JJ refers to what he calls "gestalt preference." Whether or
>not such things are meaningful to you, Gene, preferences occur
>regardless. If you allow subjective preference statements, you must
>allow implied (and then explicit) subjective comparisons.
or can recall about a given comparison.
Obviously, that could create an obvious preference between two
identical units.
One of them is yours. You can use it any time you want.
The other belongs to the chief of police, who says you're not allowed
to use it, and who is standing behind it with three big officers and
a set of handcuffs.
Dare I say that most will have a preference? (Bearing in mind that we
are not in alternative lifestyle discussions here.)
This is, btw, a rather gross example of what I mean. Much more subtle
examples exist.
The two units ARE identical, in and of themselves, though.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>always assumes difference. One cannot prefer something without a
>comparison, explicit or implied, to something else. Without difference
>there can be no preference.
yes?
> Which is why, in a practical sense, the two words are more
>linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference are
>inherently comparative.
Except that one of the joys of audio is that sensory modalities
can get hideously misattributed.
None the less, a "difference" is something that is testable
and verifiable.
The idea of "testing" a preference is, well, bizzare. One might explore
it in order to verify what ESTABLISHED the preference, but that's
a horse of another colour indeed.
Stephen McElroy
> OTOH, if you're going to take the position that preference
> statements are per se not allowed, what would be the point of ever
> discussing anything with you?
Ding! (confetti falls, marching bands play, spotlights blaze)
Stephen
George M. Middius
rhetorical vein:
> OTOH, if you're going to take the position that preference
>statements are per se not allowed, what would be the point of ever
>discussing anything with you?
Well, Ed, since you asked, the answer is anything but a
journey through the gestalt experience of personal
realization. To perceive AutoRepeat's underlying meaning,
picture a brick wall. Make it at least a foot thick, and
anchored with steel bars to a heft concrete foundation. This
wall will represent Auto's defense against preference.
You want to talk about your preference? You are,
metaphorically, ramming your unshielded cranium into Auto's
defensive wall. Bam! Bam! Bam!
You always need an ambulance -- and probably a hearse --
before AutoRepeat will acknowledge that a normal can simply
prefer one item to another. This is the drab, gray world of
sameness in which the poor dumb bastard lives all the time.
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <37072510...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> This may not have occurred to you, Arny, but "preference"
>>always assumes difference. One cannot prefer something without a
>>comparison, explicit or implied, to something else. Without difference
>>there can be no preference.
>So? The difference can be in any sense, via any sensory modality,
>yes?
Sure, but you're still stick with "difference." Now you have
to establish a vocabulary for dealing with those differences and
preferences.
>
>
>> Which is why, in a practical sense, the two words are more
>>linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference are
>>inherently comparative.
>Except that one of the joys of audio is that sensory modalities
>can get hideously misattributed.
No doubt whatsoever. This happens in hearing and taste all the
time. I assume it happens visually, aromatically and tactilely as
well. Absolutely to the point - this is one reason why commonality of
experience and perception is so meaningful in ordinary interaction and
discourse.
>
>None the less, a "difference" is something that is testable
>and verifiable.
Yes, but that doesn't imply that the results are equally
meaningful to differing populations.
>
>The idea of "testing" a preference is, well, bizzare. One might explore
>it in order to verify what ESTABLISHED the preference, but that's
>a horse of another colour indeed.
Not so bizarre as you might think, JJ. Marketing routinely
tries to analyze motivations and preference statements. While the
"why" and "how" of preference are important, the fact of it is often
even more important.
Think of elections, for example.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <3701dba3...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> JJ refers to what he calls "gestalt preference." Whether or
>>not such things are meaningful to you, Gene, preferences occur
>>regardless. If you allow subjective preference statements, you must
>>allow implied (and then explicit) subjective comparisons.
>That means the preference based on everything you know, can sense,
>or can recall about a given comparison.
>
>Obviously, that could create an obvious preference between two
>identical units.
Happens all the time. Think of the child's game in which
something is hidden in one hand and the child has to guess which hand
has the hidden goody.
Think of "I choose Curtain Three, Bob!"
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
::would type a response but too overcome with laughter. Will
try later::
Ed
>
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> OTOH, if you're going to take the position that preference
>statements are per se not allowed, what would be the point of ever
>discussing anything with you?
You miss the point. If two systems cannot be distinguished as being
audibly different (such as the Yamaha and Pass amps that Zip, his wife and
a friend heard in that test), on what basis do you make the preference?
Clearly on other criteria, right?
I never said you cannot make a preference, and don't argue that. I only
argue if the preference is made on a flawed distiction (that A sounds
better than B, when that has not been demonstrated).
Gene Steinberg
smc...@mail.utexas.edu (Stephen McElroy) wrote:
>Ding! (confetti falls, marching bands play, spotlights blaze)
Since I never said preferences weren't allowed, it only shows that Shain
is being intellectually dishonest in his conclusion.
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
>I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other than
>reasonable) than preference statements are per se allowable,
even if
>they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than
abc." To
>say otherwise renders all language and experience irrelevant.
Hardly. Just because people get caught up in hype and emotion and
make unsupportable claims does not render all language and
experience irrelevant.
Some language expresses false claims. That hardly renders all
language and experience irrelevant.
What you obviously don't understand is that in certain areas,
unassisted human perception is sufficiently relaible, and in
other areas it is not. Anybody who has any signficiant experience
with scientific endeavors knows that.
Since you claim no signficant experience with sicentific
endeavors, your ignorance in this area is understandable.
Your continual posturing against science, which you obviously
don't understand well enough to comment on it, shows you have
little wisdom about your own personal limitations.
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote in message ...
>In article <37072510...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>always assumes difference. One cannot prefer something without
a
>>comparison, explicit or implied, to something else. Without
difference
>>there can be no preference.
>So? The difference can be in any sense, via any sensory
modality,
>yes?
>
>
>>linked than may first appear, and why statements of preference
are
>>inherently comparative.
>Except that one of the joys of audio is that sensory modalities
>can get hideously misattributed.
>
>and verifiable.
>
explore
>it in order to verify what ESTABLISHED the preference, but
that's
>a horse of another colour indeed.
I think that even Shain has figured out that if a preference is
based on a difference that does not actually exist, its a very
questionable preference. And the questions are, as you point out,
about the issue of the cause of the perception of prefernce.
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <3701dba3...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>
>> OTOH, if you're going to take the position that preference
>>statements are per se not allowed, what would be the point of ever
>>discussing anything with you?
>
>You miss the point. If two systems cannot be distinguished as being
>audibly different (such as the Yamaha and Pass amps that Zip, his wife and
>a friend heard in that test), on what basis do you make the preference?
>Clearly on other criteria, right?
No, Gene. I humbly suggest you're missing the point. People
experience differences when they hear components. They perceive that
as a sonic difference, and they develop a preference based on their
perception that one sounds better than the other, regardless of what
may or may not be happening with other variables present.
If you will attack every preference statement on the basis
that the preference is "wrong" because it's based on something you
believe not to be present, you're banning all preference statements.
This is an audio group, right? It's not
rec.audio.visual.prefer.opinion. People drop in to discuss their
experiences and express preferences. They experience those preferences
as being based on audible differences, so that's the only available
way to express it, and such statements have meaning to all but a few
of this group.
Since that is the only way such sentiments can be articulated,
your position becomes that preference statements are acceptable as
long as they don't involve amps, pre-amps, cd players, dacs, cables,
and most accessories. That leaves speakers and all technical
discussions as appropriate fodder for the group.
If I've misunderstood this, please give me examples of
preference statements for such components that you feel are
acceptable, keeping in mind that all preference is necessarily
comparative.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
Er.....how?
I've been clear - in fact, I just posted to that effect -
that I know you accept preference statements.
My point has been that the preference statements which have
been deemed allowable turn out to be more like statements of "liking."
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Edward M. Shain wrote in message
>> If preference at the end user level is a reasonable thing (and
>>I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other than
>>reasonable) than preference statements are per se allowable,
>even if
>>they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than
>abc." To
>>say otherwise renders all language and experience irrelevant.
>
>
>Hardly. Just because people get caught up in hype and emotion and
>make unsupportable claims does not render all language and
>experience irrelevant.
This is a non-answer, Arny, evasive at it's core. How can one
express preference without making a comparision? If comparisons are
somehow wrong, how can preference be expressed?
>
>What you obviously don't understand is that in certain areas,
>unassisted human perception is sufficiently relaible, and in
>other areas it is not. Anybody who has any signficiant experience
>with scientific endeavors knows that.
And this has what relevance to preference statements? We are
not speaking of reliability. We are speaking of perceived preferences
and articulated opinions.
>
>Since you claim no signficant experience with sicentific
>endeavors, your ignorance in this area is understandable.
Trying to pull rank, Arny? Perhaps you should go off and run a
few cold fusion experiments.
>
>Your continual posturing against science, which you obviously
>don't understand well enough to comment on it, shows you have
>little wisdom about your own personal limitations.
Sorry, Arny. You just perceive it that way, but your
perceptions are notoriously unreliable. You need to dbt your
understanding of language so you can determine what's really been
said.
Ed
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>I think that even Shain has figured out that if a preference is
>based on a difference that does not actually exist, its a very
>questionable preference. And the questions are, as you point out,
>about the issue of the cause of the perception of prefernce.
That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
"questionable." They're quite real and should be acted upon for the
most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
Perhaps you need to understand "preference" at a deeper level.
It may be important for you to understand the root causes of a
particular preference, but for most people who are interested in use
and experience, it is the "preference" that has meaning, not it's
constituent elements.
That is the difference between scientific, research and
manufacturing applications and those of hobbyists, end-users,
consumers etc.
It's very difficult discussing what is really not a remarkable
distinction with you because you seem resistant to possibilities that
not everyone shares the same context or cares equally about the same
parts of the pie.
Ed
Rich Harkness
M. Shain) wrote:
Not only that, but if one is really going to play scientific hardball
with the participants of this newsgroup, the measurement-oriented crew
would have to submit to rigorous standards of proof as well.
If someone says "Amp A sounded better than Amp B" then, unless
the 'objectivist' has had these two amps in his shop for evaluation
or DBTs, he should be cautious about attacking the reporter's
preference. Maybe the amps sounded the same, but maybe they did not.
Maybe one amp was engineered to sound a bit different. Maybe amp 'B'
wasn't working properly. Maybe amp 'A' interacted better with the
person's speakers. Maybe the two amps simply sounded different.
Even if, in the view of the objectivist, the amps should sound the
same, unless he has measured these same two amps (and DBT) he cannot
say for sure there was no difference to be heard by the person
reporting the difference (even if the chance of the difference is a
real long shot).
Obviously the objectivist can simply express doubts based on his own
clinical experiences. However, if someone like Arny is being
demanding of such precision in 'reporting preferences' then the above
standards of precision may apply to him.
Whatdya think?
Rich.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Rich, in the future, respond to the actual statements of an objectivist,
not ones you would LIKE to respond to.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>meaningful to differing populations.
>>The idea of "testing" a preference is, well, bizzare. One might explore
>>it in order to verify what ESTABLISHED the preference, but that's
>>a horse of another colour indeed.
> Not so bizarre as you might think, JJ. Marketing routinely
>tries to analyze motivations and preference statements. While the
>"why" and "how" of preference are important, the fact of it is often
>even more important.
Agreed. None the less, that's not "testing" a preference, it's
trying to discover what element establishes the preference, yes?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I wish for a "none of the above" entry, meaning 'go back and come back
again with some new candidates' often.
Wasn't it something like "Bush vs. Clinton, Just say NO", after all?
Pete Goudreau
>
> In article <37056355...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Think of elections, for example.
> I try hard not to.
LOL!
> I wish for a "none of the above" entry, meaning 'go back and come back
> again with some new candidates' often.
>
> Wasn't it something like "Bush vs. Clinton, Just say NO", after all?
I tried "Preemptive Nuclear Strike" in the write-in section but it
wouldn't fit...<bg>
Cheers,
Pete
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Leonard <lcw...@att.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:02:07 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward
>M. Shain) wrote:
>: That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
>:"questionable." They're quite real and should be acted upon for the
>:most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
>: Perhaps you need to understand "preference" at a deeper level.
Well, I do for research, but I don't insist that everyone else does.
>:It may be important for you to understand the root causes of a
>:particular preference, but for most people who are interested in use
>:and experience, it is the "preference" that has meaning, not it's
>:constituent elements.
> ....itty bitty snippity snip......
>You've pinned this mindset to the wall on this issue..now what you're
>noting is an effort to do a little semantic tap dance around the
>issue. This happens over and over on this forum, yet there is
>a rejection of the fact that he has run into a brick wall. Name
>calling and mis-representation of your stance is not far behind.
>Pity!
Leonard, shame you haven't read what I've said on the issue, I've
said that, oh, I dunno, hundreds of times, I think.
Rich Harkness
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <3702303e....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com>,
>Rich Harkness <hark...@home.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:42:41 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward
>>M. Shain) wrote:
>>Obviously the objectivist can simply express doubts based on his own
>>clinical experiences. However, if someone like Arny is being
>>demanding of such precision in 'reporting preferences' then the above
>>standards of precision may apply to him.
>
>Rich, in the future, respond to the actual statements of an objectivist,
>not ones you would LIKE to respond to.
JJ, please notice that my post was NOT a response to you or Arny.
It was in response to Ed's post. I was making a point that was an
adjunct to the conversation - I AM allowed to do that. Now I am
responding to you and Arny.
(I'm just using Arny as an example below. The following does not mean
I disbelieve in the validity of Arny's research)
Arny's position (correct me if I'm wrong Arny) is that making a
statement of 'preference' is at once making a claim. And making a
claim carries with it the responsibility of being able to back up that
claim. I have pointed out that this has a corollary: that Arny also
has the responsibility of proving his position. Although Arny's
investigations into the subject of audible differences have left him
with a sense of the 'probabilities' involved in a these claims, unless
he has
examined the same two components the claimant has mentioned then, in a
strict sense, Arny
should not be able to criticize the person's claim (for the reasons
stated in my previous post). This is not the same thing as saying
Arny has the responsibility of 'proving a negative.' A perceived
difference CAN be disproved by testing the claimant with the exact
components in question. But unless he does that, Arny is just going
with the odds
that the components sound alike. So, if we are to be all
strict-sphinctered, then Arny will have just as burdensome a time
proving his position, component after component, as the
'subjectivist' claimants would.
However, we DON'T have to be so strict in our conversations around
here. Arny, of course, should be free to extrapolate from his (and
other's) research, in order to judge the claims of 'audible
differences' between components he has not specifically tested.
The stricter burden of prove I outlined above would just be too
unwieldy to expect of him.
This also means that reports of 'preference' can also be stated
with varying levels of accountability - they should be taken in
'context.' This newsgroup is often about exchanging 'experiences'
with audio gear on a non-scientific level. The social group
exchange is not the same as the scientific one. Some people wish
their statements to be taken in a scientific context, but many do not.
That's the beauty of context. We apply context to what people say
all day, hopefully understanding when
to challenge someone’s position and when and why to 'let it ride.'
In many contexts, it is not useful to stick to rigid definitions and
rigid responses - as seems to happen too often here. In a strictly
scientific setting, more rigidity may apply.
(I also agree with Ed that a person reporting his varying perceptions
of the same stimulus - two CD players that sound the same - is
significant in of itself, and is not the same as making a claim that
this perception is 'transferable' to anyone else. I can 'prefer' the
same vanilla ice cream one day and not the other. I can correctly
report this without having to prove the ice cream has changed in any
objective way).
Rich.
Edward M. Shain
>
>Ref: AK's semantic tap-dance routine..
>
>Edward...
>
>He's been cornered, as so many times before, and now
>he tires of this nonsense. Gross Illogic and name-calling cannot
>be far behind. He has a dogma that has a set of rules that
>stretch the bounds of reason...therefore, he attempts to warp
>the language to fit his purposes...he continually gets caught
>in this, on this forum. He can't get out of the Web and you
>become the devil incarnate. Interesting study here...your
>fortitude and ability to toy with this mindset is commendable.
>
>Leonard...
>
Thank you for the compliments, but I deserve no encomiums.
It's just practice, I suppose. We've been down this road many, many,
many times before.
Weirdly, I'm not playing. I have this forlorn hope that at
some point understanding will slowly dawn and all this idiocy about
preference, difference, opinion and claim will be laid to rest so we
can all go back to discussing and arguing about audio.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 13:42:41 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward
I said----->
>> If I've misunderstood this, please give me examples of
>>preference statements for such components that you feel are
>>acceptable, keeping in mind that all preference is necessarily
>>comparative.
>>Ed
>
>
Rich adds-------->
>Not only that, but if one is really going to play scientific hardball
>with the participants of this newsgroup, the measurement-oriented crew
>would have to submit to rigorous standards of proof as well.
>If someone says "Amp A sounded better than Amp B" then, unless
>the 'objectivist' has had these two amps in his shop for evaluation
>or DBTs, he should be cautious about attacking the reporter's
>preference.
There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
suggests components which are competently designed and manufactured
and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at best,
only very subtly different.
For the most part, if one has reliable information of this
sort, extrapolation is reasonable even if not certain. I understand
and sympathize with the need to articulate this as "certain" rather
than probable. However, I do agree with you. If the comparisons
haven't been expressly made, and knowledge is less than certain, I'd
be very careful in how I applied that body of information.
I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted with
perceived differences even when I expect they should not exist.
Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
perceived and get on with life. In a research environment, however, I
would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as the
staunchist objectivist here.
It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
window when there is no call to do so.
>Even if, in the view of the objectivist, the amps should sound the
>same, unless he has measured these same two amps (and DBT) he cannot
>say for sure there was no difference to be heard by the person
>reporting the difference (even if the chance of the difference is a
>real long shot).
I wouldn't argue this, but many would ::sigh::
>
>Obviously the objectivist can simply express doubts based on his own
>clinical experiences. However, if someone like Arny is being
>demanding of such precision in 'reporting preferences' then the above
>standards of precision may apply to him.
RAO has never been a school of "Sauce for the Gander, Sauce
For the Goose." We prefer the simpler, more satisfying "I'm right,
you're wrong" Get-The-Hell-Outta-My-Face" tradition.
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <37056355...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Yes, but that doesn't imply that the results are equally
>>meaningful to differing populations.
>Haven't claimed they would be.
>
>>>The idea of "testing" a preference is, well, bizzare. One might explore
>>>it in order to verify what ESTABLISHED the preference, but that's
>>>a horse of another colour indeed.
>
>> Not so bizarre as you might think, JJ. Marketing routinely
>>tries to analyze motivations and preference statements. While the
>>"why" and "how" of preference are important, the fact of it is often
>>even more important.
>Agreed. None the less, that's not "testing" a preference, it's
>trying to discover what element establishes the preference, yes?
Sure, that too, but I'm referring as well to testing for
actual presence of preference. There's not much else to look for after
you've discovered the fact of it, the why of it, and the mechanism by
which it's expressed.
For example, a purchase decision can be seen as a preference
for one product over another, but often a very different preference is
being followed consciously that appears externally to be something
else.
Beyond that, there are also all sorts of unconscious
preferences that may or may not fit under the rubric of your statement
above ("discover what element establishes .....etc.). I like your
statement. I just think things extend even deeper than that.
Ed
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:370f26ff...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:58:00 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Edward M. Shain wrote in message
> >> If preference at the end user level is a reasonable thing
(and
> >>I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other
than
> >>reasonable) than preference statements are per se allowable,
> >even if
> >>they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than
> >abc." To
> >>say otherwise renders all language and experience irrelevant.
> >
> >
> >Hardly. Just because people get caught up in hype and emotion
and
> >make unsupportable claims does not render all language and
> >experience irrelevant.
>
> This is a non-answer, Arny, evasive at it's core. How can one
> express preference without making a comparision? If comparisons
are
> somehow wrong, how can preference be expressed?
Nice attempt to revise reality. You claimed critiquing false
comparisons would "...render all language and experience
irrelevant..." Getting a little overblown, are we not?
>
> >What you obviously don't understand is that in certain areas,
> >unassisted human perception is sufficiently relaible, and in
> >other areas it is not. Anybody who has any signficiant
experience
> >with scientific endeavors knows that.
> And this has what relevance to preference statements?
It simply means that in some areas unassisted human perception is
so unreliable that preferences based on it are also so unreliable
as to be useless.
> We are not speaking of reliability. We are speaking of
perceived preferences
> and articulated opinions.
In audio, many of those can be shown to be so unreliable that
they are useless.
>
> >Since you claim no signficant experience with sicentific
> >endeavors, your ignorance in this area is understandable.
> Trying to pull rank, Arny? Perhaps you should go off and run a
> few cold fusion experiments.
I'd leave that to true believers like you.
>
> >Your continual posturing against science, which you obviously
> >don't understand well enough to comment on it, shows you have
> >little wisdom about your own personal limitations.
>
> Sorry, Arny. You just perceive it that way, but your
> perceptions are notoriously unreliable.
Since I am aware of that, it puts me way ahead of you! The first
step in correcting error is admitting that error exists. You want
to deny it. Sad.
Arny Krüger
>
> Weirdly, I'm not playing. I have this forlorn hope that at
> some point understanding will slowly dawn and all this idiocy
about
> preference, difference, opinion and claim will be laid to rest
so we
> can all go back to discussing and arguing about audio.
Actually, it looks like you want to quash discussion of audio by
making all opinions sacrosanct, thus eliminating the possibility
of negative comments about them.
Arny Krüger
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 11:59:35 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I think that even Shain has figured out that if a preference
is
> >based on a difference that does not actually exist, its a very
> >questionable preference. And the questions are, as you point
out,
> >about the issue of the cause of the perception of prefernce.
> That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
"questionable."
Sure they are. A drunk is so drunk that he claims he prefers
skunky beer. Does that mean that we should not question his
preference?
>They're quite real and should be acted upon for the
> most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
I agree. The reliabiltiy of a preference should be determined and
the unreliable ones should be discarded, and the reliable ones
followed up on. Clearly an action!
> Perhaps you need to understand "preference" at a deeper level.
I think that since I understand differences in types of
preferences that you deny exist, the deeper understanding is
mine.
> It may be important for you to understand the root causes of a
> particular preference, but for most people who are interested
in use
> and experience, it is the "preference" that has meaning, not
it's
> constituent elements.
If a preference is just a random variable, what action should it
require other than being listened to politely and discarded?
> That is the difference between scientific, research and
> manufacturing applications and those of hobbyists, end-users,
> consumers etc.
Wrong. In every case time and money are finite and should be
applied in the manner that provides the best results for the
investment - that is unless the goal is to magnify waste and
inefficiency. If Sterephile were to start justifiying their
egregiously flawed listening test procedures on the grounds that
they maginfy waste and efficiency, there would be little argument
from me!
> It's very difficult discussing what is really not a remarkable
> distinction with you because you seem resistant to
possibilities that
> not everyone shares the same context or cares equally about the
same
> parts of the pie.
So, do you put your money in a bank, or put it all the middle of
a main street at high noon on a weekday?
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist <j...@research.att.com>
wrote in message news:F9H4B...@research.att.com...> >On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:02:07 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net
(Edward
> >M. Shain) wrote:
> >: That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
> >:"questionable." They're quite real and should be acted upon
for the
> >:most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
> Hear, Hear.
GMAB, jj. After all you said about SUV's?
Arny Krüger
>
> There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
> suggests components which are competently designed and
manufactured
> and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at
best,
> only very subtly different.
As usual, you leave out at some caveats that allow you to create
a mistaken impression of greater generality than actually in
force. In this case, the missing word would be, if reduced to
just one, "electronics".
Talk about someone who can't be counted on to accurately present
an opinion he disagrees with! In fact, you can be counted on to
leave out critical words to weaken points you want to argue
about. You do this and then whine about other's dishonesty?
Actually, that body of information is not nearly as flawed as
that which pretends to contradict it.
> For the most part, if one has reliable information of this
> sort, extrapolation is reasonable even if not certain.
That is because you stated it with some critical parts missing.
> I understand
> and sympathize with the need to articulate this as "certain"
rather
> than probable. However, I do agree with you. If the comparisons
> haven't been expressly made, and knowledge is less than
certain, I'd
> be very careful in how I applied that body of information.
Given you regurgitated it with a significant flaw, of course!
> I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
> arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted
with
> perceived differences even when I expect they should not exist.
Try doing some reliable listening tests some time!
> Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
> perceived and get on with life.
And continually berate people who have much more relevant
experience and expertiese in the area.
> In a research environment, however, I
> would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as
the
> staunchist objectivist here.
With your demontrated levels of arrogance and inexpertiese about
things scientific, you'd probably still be too dogmatic to be
useful.
> It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
> window when there is no call to do so.
Except for the extremly high probability that it is, in the cases
cited, simply a false claim.
> >Even if, in the view of the objectivist, the amps should sound
the
> >same, unless he has measured these same two amps (and DBT) he
cannot
> >say for sure there was no difference to be heard by the person
> >reporting the difference (even if the chance of the difference
is a
> >real long shot).
>
> I wouldn't argue this, but many would ::sigh::
That's because you really don't understand the underlying
technology, of either the equipment or the listener.
> >Obviously the objectivist can simply express doubts based on
his own
> >clinical experiences. However, if someone like Arny is being
> >demanding of such precision in 'reporting preferences' then
the above
> >standards of precision may apply to him.
I talk the talk and walk the walk, as does *everyone* who does
enough blind tests to be convinced.
> RAO has never been a school of "Sauce for the Gander, Sauce
> For the Goose." We prefer the simpler, more satisfying "I'm
right,
> you're wrong" Get-The-Hell-Outta-My-Face" tradition.
A position that you seem to want to defend to the death.
Rich Harkness
M. Shain) wrote:
>
> There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
>suggests components which are competently designed and manufactured
>and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at best,
>only very subtly different.
>
snip
> I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
>arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted with
>perceived differences even when I expect they should not exist.
Same here.
> Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
>perceived and get on with life. In a research environment, however, I
>would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as the
>staunchist objectivist here.
Preeeecisely my attitude.
> It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
>window when there is no call to do so.
Agreed. And it's unfortunate that, even if our own viewpoints are
mostly aligned with the 'objectionists,' any word of dissent with
what they say seems to result in our being cast as irrational morons
who just don't 'get it.' That to me is how some of the objectivists
lose support for their views.
This tendency is of course not limited to the 'objectivist' camp.
(Sorry to use the 'objectivist' label. I don't really believe most
people fit firmly into either 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist'
characature. However, the labels are useful as a short
hand).
No hard feelings either way.
Rich.
Paul Wagner
> ...If a preference is just a random variable, what action should it
> require other than being listened to politely and discarded?...
Doesn't even require all THAT. Just being listened to politely will do,
methinks.
>... Wrong. In every case time and money are finite and should be
> applied in the manner that provides the best results for the
> investment...
As determined by the person whose time and money it is. Common respect
requires that.
--PW--
Paul Wagner
> you have little wisdom about your own personal limitations.>
Speaking of time-efficiency, shifting this statement to the first
person, and letting everyone have a copy, is one of the most efficient
social and spiritual healings available. See Journal of the Sermon on
the Mount for evidence, Vol 1 Iss 1.
--Paul W--
Paul Wagner
>
> It simply means that in some areas unassisted human perception is
> so unreliable that preferences based on it are also so unreliable
> as to be useless.
--PW--
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <37085e2e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Leonard <lcw...@att.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:02:07 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward
>>M. Shain) wrote:
>>: That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
>>:"questionable." They're quite real and should be acted upon for the
>>:most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
>Hear, Hear.
>
>>: Perhaps you need to understand "preference" at a deeper level.
>Well, I do for research, but I don't insist that everyone else does.
>
>>:It may be important for you to understand the root causes of a
>>:particular preference, but for most people who are interested in use
>>:and experience, it is the "preference" that has meaning, not it's
>>:constituent elements.
>> ....itty bitty snippity snip......
>
>>You've pinned this mindset to the wall on this issue..now what you're
>>noting is an effort to do a little semantic tap dance around the
>>issue. This happens over and over on this forum, yet there is
>>a rejection of the fact that he has run into a brick wall. Name
>>calling and mis-representation of your stance is not far behind.
>>Pity!
>Leonard, shame you haven't read what I've said on the issue, I've
>said that, oh, I dunno, hundreds of times, I think.
You've been explicitly clear on that issue, JJ. "Gestalt
preference" is a very useful construct.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
<snipped for brevity>
>(I also agree with Ed that a person reporting his varying perceptions
>of the same stimulus - two CD players that sound the same - is
>significant in of itself, and is not the same as making a claim that
>this perception is 'transferable' to anyone else. I can 'prefer' the
>same vanilla ice cream one day and not the other. I can correctly
>report this without having to prove the ice cream has changed in any
>objective way).
>
>Rich.
Rich,
Thanks for the concept of transferability. I hadn't thought of it in
quite that way. That's a very useful discrimination.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:371085cb...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> Weirdly, I'm not playing. I have this forlorn hope that at
>> some point understanding will slowly dawn and all this idiocy
>about
>> preference, difference, opinion and claim will be laid to rest
>so we
>> can all go back to discussing and arguing about audio.
>
>
>Actually, it looks like you want to quash discussion of audio by
>making all opinions sacrosanct, thus eliminating the possibility
>of negative comments about them.
Not at all, Arny. I was explicit in a post to JJ that there
are any number of statements which fall into a gray area and should be
thoroughly clarified, thrashed, dissected and fought over. Besides,
people routinely fight over opinions on such things all the time and
have a bloody good time doing it.
Nor do I mind interjection of conflicting information. What I
do strenuously object to is the dismissal of experience and the
meaningfulness of one's own perceptions in ordinary discourse and
transactions by contesting each as if it were a scientific claim
rather than a subjective statement of preference. That's what the
ruckus is about.
Ed
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
I said------->
>> This is a non-answer, Arny, evasive at it's core. How can one
>> express preference without making a comparision? If comparisons are
>> somehow wrong, how can preference be expressed?
>
Arnold rejoins------>
>Nice attempt to revise reality. You claimed critiquing false
>comparisons would "...render all language and experience
>irrelevant..." Getting a little overblown, are we not?
No, Arnold, that's not what I said. What I said was:
> If preference at the end user level is a reasonable thing (and
>I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other
>than reasonable) than preference statements are per se allowable, even if
>they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than abc."
>To say otherwise renders all language and experience irrelevant.
There is a sequence which is meaningful. Firstly, is it
reasonable for an end-user to develop preference? I answer yes to
this. Do you? If you don't, then you don't accept preference. If you
do, one moves to the next level.
If the preference is reasonable, is it reasonable to express
it as such? I again answer "yes" to this. It' seems unreasonable to me
to say that preference is all right as long as you don't talk about
it. However, if you find this unacceptable, you must also accept that
you probably don't accept as reasonable end user preferences. IOW, if
you say "preference is OK but discussing it is not" then I say that
position renders all language and experience irrelevant.
In such a position, how is your statement that "preference is
acceptable" meaningful in any way?
> >What you obviously don't understand is that in certain areas,
>> >unassisted human perception is sufficiently relaible, and in
>> >other areas it is not. Anybody who has any signficiant
>experience
>> >with scientific endeavors knows that.
Oh, pssshaw! I understand that position perfectly well. I
can't help it if you have semantically trapped yourself. Your problem
is political, not scientific.
>
>> And this has what relevance to preference statements?
>
>It simply means that in some areas unassisted human perception is
>so unreliable that preferences based on it are also so unreliable
>as to be useless.
That is your judgement, your belief and your opinion. It is
not what we are discussing. Again, Arnold, it was you who insisted you
accepted preference.
I have never for one moment believed that you do.
>
>> We are not speaking of reliability. We are speaking of
>perceived preferences
>> and articulated opinions.
>
>In audio, many of those can be shown to be so unreliable that
>they are useless.
So what? How is that germane? You are merely evaluating here,
giving me the reasons why you feel as you do. We all know that. You've
been perfectly clear. This discussion is over preference and perceived
difference and whether such discussion should be tolerated, not the
validity of same.
>> >Your continual posturing against science, which you obviously
>> >don't understand well enough to comment on it, shows you have
>> >little wisdom about your own personal limitations.
>>
>> Sorry, Arny. You just perceive it that way, but your
>> perceptions are notoriously unreliable.
>
>Since I am aware of that, it puts me way ahead of you! The first
>step in correcting error is admitting that error exists. You want
>to deny it. Sad.
Really? I wasn't aware. Please tell me the one about how you
tolerate preference statements again..........
Ed
>
>
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>> That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
>"questionable."
>
>Sure they are. A drunk is so drunk that he claims he prefers
>skunky beer. Does that mean that we should not question his
>preference?
Wrong context, Arny. You established the original context of
"questionable" meaning preferences based on possibly non-existent
characteristics.
Here you're merely judging again.
>
>>They're quite real and should be acted upon for the
>> most part (assuming it's not illegal or unethical).
>
>I agree. The reliabiltiy of a preference should be determined and
>the unreliable ones should be discarded, and the reliable ones
>followed up on. Clearly an action!
Not necessarily, and usually not. A preference exists and
people usually follow it on the reasonable assumption that they will
be happier with what they prefer.
There's certainly no rule about it. If one prefers vanilla to
chocolate is testing required before action? The point about
preference is that its a subjective judgement, suitable only for the
person making that evaluation. If you feel it appropriate to research,
establish validity etc, by all means do so.
>
>> Perhaps you need to understand "preference" at a deeper level.
>
>I think that since I understand differences in types of
>preferences that you deny exist, the deeper understanding is
>mine.
Please read the entire thread again. No where have I said any
such thing. The context, as it has continually been, is your
insistence that you tolerate preference statements.
>
>> It may be important for you to understand the root causes of a
>> particular preference, but for most people who are interested
>in use
>> and experience, it is the "preference" that has meaning, not
>it's
>> constituent elements.
>
>If a preference is just a random variable, what action should it
>require other than being listened to politely and discarded?
That's entirely reasonable if one thinks that, and one may
well be right. Preferences are not necessarily portable. If all of us
followed such a rule, RAO would be much more hospitable.
>
>
>> That is the difference between scientific, research and
>> manufacturing applications and those of hobbyists, end-users,
>> consumers etc.
>
>Wrong. In every case time and money are finite and should be
>applied in the manner that provides the best results for the
>investment - that is unless the goal is to magnify waste and
>inefficiency.
Nonsense, Arny. You're just projecting your own value system.
There is no one "right" flavor in preference. Value judgements are
inherent in preference statements, and values may differ sharply.
> If Sterephile were to start justifiying their
>egregiously flawed listening test procedures on the grounds that
>they maginfy waste and efficiency, there would be little argument
> from me!
This is nothing more than a troll.
>
>> It's very difficult discussing what is really not a remarkable
>> distinction with you because you seem resistant to
>possibilities that
>> not everyone shares the same context or cares equally about the
>same
>> parts of the pie.
>
>So, do you put your money in a bank, or put it all the middle of
>a main street at high noon on a weekday?
This is, by you, an argument? The discussion is not about the
inherent reasonability or sensibility of any particular preference.
In fact, this entire thread would end if you would either accept that
you don't, in fact, tolerate preference statements universally or
amend your position so that you do. If your position is that you'll
only tolerate such statements when they involve loudspeakers, please
say that. Just make your positions consistent and consonant.
Is there any possibility of an in-between position here? Yet
you keep maintaining that you tolerate such statements while
simultaneously furiously attacking any expressions of it. This is not
an attack, Arny. I'm just trying to clarify your position. Your stated
position sharply conflicts with your responses toward preference.
Ed
>
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:37128772...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
>> suggests components which are competently designed and
>manufactured
>> and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at
>best,
>> only very subtly different.
>
>As usual, you leave out at some caveats that allow you to create
>a mistaken impression of greater generality than actually in
>force. In this case, the missing word would be, if reduced to
>just one, "electronics".
Oh, Golly Gee! Another caveat! Of course you mis-state your
own position. How do you feel toward tweaks, Arny? Shakti stones?
Cable? Spikes? Bedini clarifier? Green cd Ink? Vibra-pods? Racks?
Power cords? MMs on a speaker (courtesy of Jeff Joseph ::grin:: )
You're an idiot. You can't even state your own position, and
you certainly can't state mine. Please apologize for this uncalled for
attack.
>
>Talk about someone who can't be counted on to accurately present
>an opinion he disagrees with! In fact, you can be counted on to
>leave out critical words to weaken points you want to argue
>about. You do this and then whine about other's dishonesty?
See above. You are, of course, the most dishonest person in
this newsgroup, bar none.
>
>Actually, that body of information is not nearly as flawed as
>that which pretends to contradict it.
>
>> For the most part, if one has reliable information of this
>> sort, extrapolation is reasonable even if not certain.
>
>That is because you stated it with some critical parts missing.
Let's see now....hmmmmm........what's the highest confidence
level of any test that you've run? Does that speak to "certainty" or
to reasonability?
Are you now claiming 100% certainty and confidence in your
results? Please confirm.
>
>> I understand
>> and sympathize with the need to articulate this as "certain"
>rather
>> than probable. However, I do agree with you. If the comparisons
>> haven't been expressly made, and knowledge is less than
>certain, I'd
>> be very careful in how I applied that body of information.
>
>Given you regurgitated it with a significant flaw, of course!
Of course, I didn't include a flaw. I stated your position
reasonably well, and certainly with great fairness towards the
objective position. As seen above, you blew it.
>
>> I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
>> arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted
>with
>> perceived differences even when I expect they should not exist.
>
>Try doing some reliable listening tests some time!
>
>
>> Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
>> perceived and get on with life.
>
>And continually berate people who have much more relevant
>experience and expertiese in the area.
No, I berate only you and Ferstler and occasionally Gene. Why
is that, I wonder? How come I'm never in these sorts of discussions
with JJ or John Feng or Stewart?
Do you think you may have something to do with that? Is there
the slim possibility that you're doing something wrong here?
>
>
>> In a research environment, however, I
>> would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as
>the
>> staunchist objectivist here.
>
>With your demontrated levels of arrogance and inexpertiese about
>things scientific, you'd probably still be too dogmatic to be
>useful.
Missing the point entirely, as usual, to make a dubious and
irrelevant attack.
>
>
>> It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
>> window when there is no call to do so.
>
>Except for the extremly high probability that it is, in the cases
>cited, simply a false claim.
>
Not "false" and not a claim. It's preference. For someone who
claims such scientific understanding, you're having a great difficulty
here.
>> >Even if, in the view of the objectivist, the amps should sound
>the
>> >same, unless he has measured these same two amps (and DBT) he
>cannot
>> >say for sure there was no difference to be heard by the person
>> >reporting the difference (even if the chance of the difference
>is a
>> >real long shot).
>>
>> I wouldn't argue this, but many would ::sigh::
>
>That's because you really don't understand the underlying
>technology, of either the equipment or the listener.
The listener has no technology, Arnold. He or she is a person.
He or she does have a biology, however.
The engineering is irrelevant. I also understand it well
enough to follow these arguments. This is hardly rocket science. I
don't have to be able to engineer it or even repair it to understand
the underlying concepts. There are as many engineers who would argue
with you on this point as those who wouldn't and they certainly
understand that technology. This is about your language and your
behavior. Unfortunately, I am all too competent to understand both.
Ed
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) made me feel his comments
were just a silly April Fool's joke when he moaned:
> If you will attack every preference statement on the basis
>that the preference is "wrong" because it's based on something you
>believe not to be present, you're banning all preference statements.
I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
>
> This is an audio group, right? It's not
>rec.audio.visual.prefer.opinion. People drop in to discuss their
>experiences and express preferences. They experience those preferences
>as being based on audible differences, so that's the only available
>way to express it, and such statements have meaning to all but a few
>of this group.
No, no, no. If the audible differences do not really exist, on what basis
do you make a preference? This is not a trick question and it's one you
still can't seem to understand. Do I have to explain that there are other
areas where one my have a preference even if there's no real audible
difference?
>
> Since that is the only way such sentiments can be articulated,
>your position becomes that preference statements are acceptable as
>long as they don't involve amps, pre-amps, cd players, dacs, cables,
>and most accessories. That leaves speakers and all technical
>discussions as appropriate fodder for the group.
Since your conclusion is at variance with what I really said, that makes
having a sensible discussion with you impossible.
Gene Steinberg
(Leonard) wrote:
>Did you note that Edward pinned him to the wall...?
No, I noted that Edward continued to distort the argument and come up with
illogical responses to his distorted interpretation. He basically says he
knows (apparently only dimly) that there are scientific tests out there
indicating many perceived audible differences in audio electronics (MANY,
reading challenged, not ALL!!!) do not exist. But since he hears them
anyway, he cannot understand how his ears may fool him (even though
decades of scientific research show they can), so he ignores the
possibility.
He also distorts the preference issue beyond recognition, even though he's
been corrected dozens of times on that one too.
But then you do the same thing.
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> I've been clear - in fact, I just posted to that effect -
>that I know you accept preference statements.
You misstate the conditions, however, and don't seem to understand the
paradox. If two components sound the same, how do you state a preference
based on sound?
Gene Steinberg
hark...@home.com (Rich Harkness) wrote:
>Not only that, but if one is really going to play scientific hardball
>with the participants of this newsgroup, the measurement-oriented crew
>would have to submit to rigorous standards of proof as well.
I think you need to read the literature a little before you come up with
this nonsense.
Clearly the causes of genuine audible differences in electronics and
cables are pretty well known by now. So if a component's specs are below
the known thresholds of audibility, you can predict with reasonable
certainty whether folks will hear differences or not.
Gene Steinberg
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
>suggests components which are competently designed and manufactured
>and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at best,
>only very subtly different.
It is a lot less flawed than the sighted listening comparisons that show
differences to exist without sufficient measurable cause.
> It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
>window when there is no call to do so.
You continue to distort the argument. If two components sound the same,
how do you state a preference based on sound? Answer, the preference can
be based on other factors. You still don't seem to understand that.
Arny Krüger
Rich Harkness <hark...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3702ad23....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com...
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:51:22 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net
(Edward
> M. Shain) wrote:
\>
> > I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
> >arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted
with
> >perceived differences even when I expect they should not
exist.
>
There are about 200,000 people as brainwashed as this.
> > Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
> >perceived and get on with life. In a research environment,
however, I
> >would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as
the
> >staunchist objectivist here.
> Preeeecisely my attitude.
Anti-intellectual and anti-scientific though it may be...
> > It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
> >window when there is no call to do so.
Straw man. The issue is really whether or not there is any call
to do so. This claim presumes that the outcome of the debate is
already known and he won.
> Agreed. And it's unfortunate that, even if our own viewpoints
are
> mostly aligned with the 'objectionists,' any word of dissent
with
> what they say seems to result in our being cast as irrational
morons
> who just don't 'get it.'
I'll take exception to the "moron" part. Irrational and "don't
get it" seem to fit. But, this is just more demagogic posturing
from Shain.
>That to me is how some of the objectivists lose support for
their views.
Science and technlogy almost always win. Having 99% of everything
going your way is about as good as it gets, right?
You may have your little tweeko living room, with high end
window-dressing, but all the commercial recordings, all the
broadcasts, and even most of the transitistors and chips in your
HiFi are built to the standards you demean.
Arny Krüger
Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37026E...@earthlink.net...
> Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> > It simply means that in some areas unassisted human
perception is
> > so unreliable that preferences based on it are also so
unreliable
> > as to be useless.
>
Anybody but the person who hope against hope, hangs onto that
unreliable perception.
It's been said that insanity is the business of doing he exact
same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome.
That pretty well covers the religious high end.
Arny Krüger
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:09:18 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> I said------->
> >> This is a non-answer, Arny, evasive at it's core. How can
one
> >> express preference without making a comparision? If
comparisons are
> >> somehow wrong, how can preference be expressed?
> >
> Arnold rejoins------>
> >Nice attempt to revise reality. You claimed critiquing false
> >comparisons would "...render all language and experience
> >irrelevant..." Getting a little overblown, are we not?
>
> No, Arnold, that's not what I said. What I said was:
>
> > If preference at the end user level is a reasonable thing
(and
> >I can't, for a moment, think it would not be anything other
> >than reasonable) than preference statements are per se
allowable, even if
> >they incorporate comparatives such as "xyz sounds better than
abc."
> >To say otherwise renders all language and experience
irrelevant.
That's right. What you won't deal with is the possibility (often
certainty) that many preference statements on RAO are based on
something other than hearing.
Among the 200,000 or so religious high enders, it is common for
them to believe in the universal existance of audible
differences. Stereophile, TAS and HFN&RR have been preaching this
false dogma for over 20 years. 40 years ago, audible differences
were pretty much universal. Technology improved, but the
religious high end did not adjust their belief system to keep up.
> There is a sequence which is meaningful. Firstly, is it
> reasonable for an end-user to develop preference?
If there are reliably audible inherent differences are not
uncommon in that class of equipment, by all means.
However, here is where you go off the deep end. You tacitly deny
that there are classes of equipment where reliably audible
inherent differences are relatively rare. Science and reason say
otherwise.
You really need to learn how to think with higher resolution, and
based on up-top-date knowlege.
Arny Krüger
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > ...If a preference is just a random variable, what action
should it
> > require other than being listened to politely and
>
> Doesn't even require all THAT. Just being listened to politely
will do,
> methinks.
Obviously, in real life, the "discard" happens after I leave.
> >... Wrong. In every case time and money are finite and should
be
> > applied in the manner that provides the best results for the
> > investment...
>
> As determined by the person whose time and money it is. Common
respect
> requires that.
Like I said, "listened to politely".
Arny Krüger
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:17:42 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> That's not my position, Arny. Preferences are never
> >"questionable."
> >
> >Sure they are. A drunk is so drunk that he claims he prefers
> >skunky beer. Does that mean that we should not question his
> >preference?
>
> Wrong context, Arny. You established the original context of
> "questionable" meaning preferences based on possibly
non-existent
> characteristics.
I guess you've never been sober when other people are drunk.
Steve Zipser
The trick is top induce autorepeatborg to go into oscillation mode. All
you have to do is get him to respond to ANY post!
In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip25.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net says...
> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
> I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
> whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
> an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
> wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <370d23d9...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) made me feel his comments
>were just a silly April Fool's joke when he moaned:
>
>> If you will attack every preference statement on the basis
>>that the preference is "wrong" because it's based on something you
>>believe not to be present, you're banning all preference statements.
>
>I am not attacking every preference statement. I am only commenting on
>whether the preferences is based on a real or imaginery perception (i.e.
>an audible difference between components being auditioned). Read what I
>wrote again; hopefully you won't screw it up next time.
As usual, you're not smart enough to go beyond your rather
simple understanding. The perception is not imaginary in any sense.
The experience is real. The cause may be misattributed.
Your position is that a perception of preference between two
electronic components operating within their limits and that has been
competently designed and manufactured must be due to factors other
than sonic quality, correct?
Despite this, preferences often develop when comparing two
components. People perceive this as being a difference of better sonic
quality regardless of may, in fact, be the cause of the perception.
So, if they are going to discuss it, mustn't they discuss it in terms
of one being sonically better than the other?
Are they supposed to say they preferred A to B and then
forever seal their mouths?
When they do, of course, they are attacked. No, I will not
accept your term of "only commenting." You reject their experience out
of hand, dismiss their perceptions, and tell them they were imagining
things.
Firstly, their perceptual experience was substantial and real.
Secondly, they weren't imagining things. One of those components did
sound better, probably because of a level mismatch but it did sound
better regardless. On what basis should their perception be discarded
by themselves?
You might not find it meaningful, but it is to those
discussing it. Either you tolerate preference statements or you don't
Gene. There's no middle ground. I asked you for an example of a
preference statement that didn't involve a comparative, or at least of
one that was acceptable to you. The answer, of course, is there is
none because you don't tolerate it.
>
>>
>> This is an audio group, right? It's not
>>rec.audio.visual.prefer.opinion. People drop in to discuss their
>>experiences and express preferences. They experience those preferences
>>as being based on audible differences, so that's the only available
>>way to express it, and such statements have meaning to all but a few
>>of this group.
>
>No, no, no. If the audible differences do not really exist, on what basis
>do you make a preference? This is not a trick question and it's one you
>still can't seem to understand. Do I have to explain that there are other
>areas where one my have a preference even if there's no real audible
>difference?
You genuinely lack understanding here. We are not discussing
the basis of perception. That is a very long and involved
conversation. We are discussing whether preference statements are
tolerated.
You completely ran by my statement quoted just below this. If
people are experiencing one thing having a better sound than another,
regardless of WHY they may be having that perception, how else can
they share it, discuss it, analyze it?
You seem to have difficulty in understanding that such
statements do not need to be rigorously challenged and examined. You
are not the judge of them. Of course, if it's your position that no
preference statements of any sort are tolerable except for those
pertaining to loudspeakers on RAO, please confirm so we finally
understand what the real position is.
>>
>> Since that is the only way such sentiments can be articulated,
>>your position becomes that preference statements are acceptable as
>>long as they don't involve amps, pre-amps, cd players, dacs, cables,
>>and most accessories. That leaves speakers and all technical
>>discussions as appropriate fodder for the group.
>
>Since your conclusion is at variance with what I really said, that makes
>having a sensible discussion with you impossible.
No. My conclusions are dead-on. You're just semantically and
politically trapped. You know it would be social suicide to take the
position that no preference statements can be tolerated on anything
other than loudspeaker in a group entitled rc.audio.opinion but you
have no semantic way out. You're trapped, both linguistically and
politically.
The honorable way out, it would seem, is just to make it
forthright: "I, Gene Steinberg, will not tolerate any expressions of
preference relative to any electronic component, cable, interconnect,
and accessory."
Then we can all throw you in the trash bin where you properly
belong.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <37128772...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>
>> There exists a body of information, however flawed, that
>>suggests components which are competently designed and manufactured
>>and operating within their limits should sound the same or, at best,
>>only very subtly different.
>
>It is a lot less flawed than the sighted listening comparisons that show
>differences to exist without sufficient measurable cause.
At least you agree with my statement of your position
>
>> It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
>>window when there is no call to do so.
>
>You continue to distort the argument. If two components sound the same,
>how do you state a preference based on sound? Answer, the preference can
>be based on other factors. You still don't seem to understand that.
Yes, we know your position. I am not distorting anything. One
states a preference based on sound because that is how one perceives
it, regardless of what may be precipitating it.
Really, Gene, are you this dense? Should people say "I
perceive A to be better than B in sound quality but I mustn't say
that. Instead I shall say that I prefer A because the frammis is 3"
wider on A than B else poor Gene will become distraught."
The result will be, of course, whole new generations of
subjectivists speaking in a secret code so as to avoid upsetting you
eg: "George, you can't say that the flabbergam smooths things out when
the glarzygloph is schlobbing it at the same time! Besides, if your
room is bandygast, then mytzleplyk is clearly best."
Ed
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <370a6257...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, lcw...@att.net
>(Leonard) wrote:
>
>>Did you note that Edward pinned him to the wall...?
>
>No, I noted that Edward continued to distort the argument and come up with
>illogical responses to his distorted interpretation. He basically says he
>knows (apparently only dimly) that there are scientific tests out there
>indicating many perceived audible differences in audio electronics (MANY,
>reading challenged, not ALL!!!) do not exist. But since he hears them
>anyway, he cannot understand how his ears may fool him (even though
>decades of scientific research show they can), so he ignores the
>possibility.
No, Gene. I didn't say anything near that. I said that I
follow preference because it's sensible to do that regardless of
whether the basis for my preference is fully understood or not. Are
you saying I should choose something I *don't* prefer?
Which is the more unreasonable position?
>
>He also distorts the preference issue beyond recognition, even though he's
>been corrected dozens of times on that one too.
No, I don't distort it at all. It's your position that you
tolerate preference statements. That position, given your behavior is
dishonest and fraudulent. You don't tolerate them at all.
That's what this is all about. This is not about challenging
the credibility of the objectivist position. It is purely about
preference. Do you object to preference, Gene?
Of course not. That would be absurd.
Do you object to people discussing their preferences? I hope
not. That would be equally absurd.
However, how can they do that if you challenge the
articulation as soon as its made on the basis that their preference
isn't real? (which, right on point, is wrong. The preference is very
real. The reasons for it may or may not be obscure).
You're simply not capable of nuance, Gene, and it's hindering
you here.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
Steinberg) wrote:
>In article <370e265e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
>
>> I've been clear - in fact, I just posted to that effect -
>>that I know you accept preference statements.
>
>You misstate the conditions, however, and don't seem to understand the
>paradox. If two components sound the same, how do you state a preference
>based on sound?
There is no paradox. The perception is that components may
sound differently and that one prefers a given piece to another.
That's very real. That is what people experience. One discusses it
very easily. People do all the time. You see the fact of that every
day, Gene.
The reasons for that perception may vary from what is
consciously understood. I wish you'd grasp this difference, because
it's vital.
Please clarify, then. If I've misstated the conditions as you
say above, do you tolerate preference statements? If so, how?
Ed
Rich Harkness
wrote:
Rich said:
>> Agreed. And it's unfortunate that, even if our own viewpoints
>are
>> mostly aligned with the 'objectionists,' any word of dissent
>with
>> what they say seems to result in our being cast as irrational
>morons
>> who just don't 'get it.'
>
>I'll take exception to the "moron" part. Irrational and "don't
>get it" seem to fit. But, this is just more demagogic posturing
>from Shain.
>
>
>>That to me is how some of the objectivists lose support for
>their views.
>
>Science and technlogy almost always win. Having 99% of everything
>going your way is about as good as it gets, right?
>
>You may have your little tweeko living room, with high end
>window-dressing, but all the commercial recordings, all the
>broadcasts, and even most of the transitistors and chips in your
>HiFi are built to the standards you demean.
Amazing Arny, you've done exactly what I bemoan in my first paragraph.
Now you imply I'm an irrational tweeko. It happens I do not have a
'tweeko' living room (system). Plus, I haven't argued with one iota
of your technical claims. I have actually only venture to dissent
(gasp) with the fact that you sometimes bring technical issues
into discussions when they are not welcome. You allow yourself to do
this by linking 'preference' with 'claim.' I am simply disputing that
linkage, in the hopes you will have more discretion about when you
take people to task for their opinions.
Rich.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Rich Harkness <hark...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3702ad23....@news.yec1.on.wave.home.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 20:51:22 GMT, Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net
>(Edward
>> M. Shain) wrote:
>\>
>> > I am, for the most part, persuaded by these technical
>> >arguments at the same time that I am continually confronted
>with
>> >perceived differences even when I expect they should not
>exist.
>>
>> Same here.
>
>There are about 200,000 people as brainwashed as this.
This is a troll
>
>
>> > Given that contradiction, I simply accept my preferences as
>> >perceived and get on with life. In a research environment,
>however, I
>> >would be every bit as persnickety and vigorously rigorous as
>the
>> >staunchist objectivist here.
>
>> Preeeecisely my attitude.
>
>Anti-intellectual and anti-scientific though it may be...
Another troll
>
>> > It galls me, however, that preference gets thrown out the
>> >window when there is no call to do so.
>
>Straw man. The issue is really whether or not there is any call
>to do so. This claim presumes that the outcome of the debate is
>already known and he won.
No. This is precisely wrong. It is not a straw man. It is not
a competition nor a debate. There's no argument, nor was a claim
made, but only a statement of preference.
Your perception that this is, indeed, a competition, is at the
root of the problem. After all, Arny, you were the one who insisted
you accepted preference statements.
>
>
>> Agreed. And it's unfortunate that, even if our own viewpoints
>are
>> mostly aligned with the 'objectionists,' any word of dissent
>with
>> what they say seems to result in our being cast as irrational
>morons
>> who just don't 'get it.'
>
>I'll take exception to the "moron" part. Irrational and "don't
>get it" seem to fit. But, this is just more demagogic posturing
>from Shain.
No, Arny. It's the natural fruit of your claiming you tolerate
preference when, in fact, you don't. I truly don't understand your
recalcitrance in clarifying your position on this. It isn't a matter
of science, after all, but just a truer statement of your position.
>
>
>>That to me is how some of the objectivists lose support for
>their views.
>
>Science and technlogy almost always win. Having 99% of everything
>going your way is about as good as it gets, right?
We aren't speaking of religion here, Arnold. Virtually all of
our present infrastructure and much of our culture is infused with
science and technology. Do you think that construct exists solely for
you?
What's going on here is political and social, not technical.
>
>You may have your little tweeko living room, with high end
>window-dressing, but all the commercial recordings, all the
>broadcasts, and even most of the transitistors and chips in your
>HiFi are built to the standards you demean.
This is both a troll and a lovely straw man. I guess you can
chew gum and be dishonest at the same time.
Ed
>
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Paul Wagner <paulw...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
I'm not sure of the high end, but your statement describes you
beautifully.
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>That's right. What you won't deal with is the possibility (often
>certainty) that many preference statements on RAO are based on
>something other than hearing.
Of course I'll deal with that. Make it a separate thread. This
one's about preference statements, whether you tolerate them (not
necessarily agree with them), and whether a preference statement is,
in fact, a claim.
>
>Among the 200,000 or so religious high enders, it is common for
>them to believe in the universal existance of audible
>differences. Stereophile, TAS and HFN&RR have been preaching this
>false dogma for over 20 years. 40 years ago, audible differences
>were pretty much universal. Technology improved, but the
>religious high end did not adjust their belief system to keep up.
A troll, and irrelevant. Please stay on topic.
>
>
>
>> There is a sequence which is meaningful. Firstly, is it
>> reasonable for an end-user to develop preference?
>
>If there are reliably audible inherent differences are not
>uncommon in that class of equipment, by all means.
So, your position is that preference can't develop in the
absence of "differences?"
>
>However, here is where you go off the deep end. You tacitly deny
>that there are classes of equipment where reliably audible
>inherent differences are relatively rare. Science and reason say
>otherwise.
I'm not explicitly or tacitly denying anything. Get it through
your head this is not about the correctness of the perceptions, it's
about the fact of them. The perception is real, even if you judge the
reasons for it to be otherwise than the person reporting the
experience.
>
>You really need to learn how to think with higher resolution, and
>based on up-top-date knowlege.
>
Given your series of responses lately, I'd say you merely need
to learn to think. 1st grade reading comprehension seems like a
suitable goal for you.
Ed
>
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3723e063...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 22:17:42 GMT, "Arny Krüger"
><ar...@flash.net>
>> wrote:
>I guess you've never been sober when other people are drunk.
Another troll.
Ed
>
>
>
Edward M. Shain
<snipped for brevity>
Leonard,
I like your "silligism." I shall remember that. Thanks for the
praise and comments.
Ed
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Sure, that too, but I'm referring as well to testing for
>actual presence of preference. There's not much else to look for after
>you've discovered the fact of it, the why of it, and the mechanism by
>which it's expressed.
Ok. However, that's not "testing preference", it's "testing for preference".
To me "testing preference" implies validating it. Somehow, well,
I find that specious.
> Beyond that, there are also all sorts of unconscious
>preferences that may or may not fit under the rubric of your statement
>above ("discover what element establishes .....etc.). I like your
>statement. I just think things extend even deeper than that.
Oh, it's simplified, indeed.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>GMAB, jj. After all you said about SUV's?
Heavens, Arny, it was a joke. You're sounding as bad as George here,
who quoted one of my jokes (or so I'm told, I don't read his defamation
stream) without any understanding at all, and then, one article later,
proclaimed I had no sense of humor.
I not telling someone else they don't prefer SUV's. I don't necessarily
agree with them.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(to Arny)
> See above. You are, of course, the most dishonest person in
>this newsgroup, bar none.
> Let's see now....hmmmmm........what's the highest confidence
>level of any test that you've run? Does that speak to "certainty" or
>to reasonability?
Well, if I can chime in, I've recently run a test where each of 5 subjects
(yes, a very small test) did 36 trials, and the correct ID rate was over
97%.
That's something like 174/180. Now that's not 100%, nothing is
100%. It is, however, a one-sided chance of something like 9*10^-46.
May I assign that the quality of "pretty (*&(*& close"? :_)
> No, I berate only you and Ferstler and occasionally Gene. Why
>is that, I wonder? How come I'm never in these sorts of discussions
>with JJ or John Feng or Stewart?
Oh, we've debated ;_)
Um, do you prefer Calloway or GolfWorks? (duck!)
George M. Middius
>It's been said that insanity is the business of doing he exact
>same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome.
Does the Steinborg know of your feelings in this matter, Arnii?
George M. Middius
Nousaine
<<<<No. My conclusions are dead-on. You're just semantically and politically
trapped. You know it would be social suicide to take the position that no
preference statements can be tolerated on anything other than loudspeaker in a
group entitled rc.audio.opinion but you have no semantic way out. You're
trapped, both linguistically and politically.
The honorable way out, it would seem, is just to make it forthright: "I, Gene
Steinberg, will not tolerate any expressions of preference relative to any
electronic component, cable, interconnect,
and accessory."
Then we can all throw you in the trash bin where you properly belong.
Ed>>>>
If I follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion Ed is saying that
he should be free to make any statement of preference on the 'sound quality' of
any device. Fair enough. But he also wants freedom from replies that may have
contrary content which may simply just note that no existing evidence supports
the notion that such a device would have any sound of its own.
It's more of a plea for isolation of contradictory evidence than a confirmation
of freedom for preference expression. This sort of idea has interesting aspects
mostly because it stems from preference for relatively expensive products with
commodity grade performance.
We all have our preferences for laundry detergent. And when asked why I use
Tide and not Cheer I tend to think 'because it cleans my clothes better.' Does
it? I doubt it and I sure don't have any reliable evidence that it does.
But preference tends to get couched in performance terms. Otherwise why would I
ever care one way or another? The more expensive the product the stronger the
tendency to express preference and to tie such to performance.
This is all fine. But why does one need a special dispensation for preference
expression without expecting that someone may have other evidence about that
matter? And that others will be expected NOT to present that evidence or their
opinions?
I think Ed forgets that the rao he seems to be asking for will ultimately
degenerate into "this amp sounds great" and "yes it does" to "no, its a piece
of crap and my amp sounds a lot better" mayhem.
Some might expect that it would become a support group of Sumo owners patting
each other on the back for their special sensitivity. Some of that may happen
but it won't last all that long. And what good purpose would either serve?
Now people can express any preference they want. Others can express any
opinions they may have about them supported with evidence or not.
Personally I try not to express 'opinions' on things that can be determined
with experiment. All my dozen amplifiers sound exactly the same. It has been
shown to be true for me under blind listening conditions. And this transparency
has been shown to be transferrable to others under those same conditions with
several of the devices.
Therefore I prefer any one depending on its applicability to the job at hand
and to its feature set.
I have said this many times. Typically I get many negative responses ranging
from 'I feel sorry for you because you can't hear and you're missing some great
sound', to 'you trolling piece of deaf robotic shit get off RAO.' I hope this
is the kind of stuff Ed wants to free us from.