Looks GREAT, sounds like a lot of minds that think over there, most know it's all nonsense with wires being so audible, they make a lot of good points on the BS in wires. Yeah, let's press some LP's back into shape, then demagnetize em.

Quote:
Looks GREAT, sounds like a lot of minds that think over there, most know it's all nonsense with wires being so audible, they make a lot of good points on the BS in wires.

Sounds like the perfect place for you to go and stay awhile, dup.

But you wouldn't irritate anyone over there; would you? That would take all the fun out of it for you, eh?

I doubt MF cares whether anyone on that forum likes or dislikes him or the machine. What's the point of getting on a forum where you are arguing constantly with someone lacking a logical argument about anything who can take a thread about a LP flattener and totally destroy the direction of the converstaion by babbling on incoherently about the snake oil of audio and how cables all sound the same and how stupid everyone is who doesn't do exactly like they do ...

Never mind.

All this debate is really something.

There have been enough subjective experiences that turned out to be "real" but were not "measurable" at the time they were first put forth to make me wonder about the sanity of the "if it's not measurable now, it never will be" camp.

Then, there are enough, "They laughed at Einstein at first, too...so I am just as right as Einstein" subjectivist claims to make me question their sanity, as well.

The two camps will never meet - they each have too much invested in their own schtick to ever explore the other side's positive attributes.

Which is fine...

...but my pet peeve is the refusal of so-called pundits to adequately explore the reproducibility of subjective experiences.

When someone makes (ridiculous) claims of "night and day" or "order of magnitude" or "like lifting a veil" differences, but then also claims that these effects are "too subtle" to be detected with blind listening...I say, "BS."

I detect a huge, HUGE, HUGE component of "fear of being found out" in their refusals to see just what and how we hear what we hear. It's a fascinating yet shunned part of the hobby.

Fallible punditry is to be avoided at all costs, I guess. Better to make a pronouncement than it is to question a finding.

That lack of curiosity is my biggest bugaboo with reading about what reviewers "have found."

The closest I have been able to come to seeing what reviewers really hear is a crude calculation of the audio placebo effect - the amount of time it takes an indispensable tweak to work its way out of a reviewer's system listing.

One of my favorites was the Tice clock, which Mike Fremer even went so far as to compare with another company's clock and found his favorite clock tweak to be obviously and profoundly effective. It was a tweak that he proclaimed to be real, lasting, and integral to the act of participating in high end audio. This tweak was so timelessly effective that it migrated out of his system, never to be heard from again, over a relatively short span of time.

If you save back issues of any audio mag, go back and look at all the "obvous and incredible" accessories various reviewers have declared "real" and track their lifespan.

We might be the only hobby that declares certain things essential, and then forgets about them over a period of just a few months.

.

http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index3.html

I am totaly into AUDIO, the equipment, the designs, the SCIENCE, acoustics, electricla concepts, electronics, LOGIC, realitys. When some fiction writer comes up with a page and a half of prose and verbage, glorifying the nonsese that is the sounds of wires and the sounds of demagnetized PLASTICS...and trys to make it eem like the audible differences is like teh differences between SACD DSD and CD or stero and mono...come on. I understand subtle differences, I can hear ya know. I've AB'd different versions of amps and can hear a difference, but ya know what, the difference between them are subtle, not earth shaking like the prose writers on every issue want you to beleive. The difference between a stock Hafler amp and one that is rebuilt with modern fast ckts, lest distortions, more linear is audible, and MEASURABLE!!! Telling me a demagnetized LP is so much difference, is peeing on me and telling me it's raining. Same for the adsurditys of TT's. How in less than a year some $80,000 one get's suplanted by teh next spinning platter for $125,000...the fiction writers wanna have you beleive it's also like Cd versus 78RPM records. And differences in amps or pre amps unless listened to side by side, not trying to remeber what teh otehr one sounded like, is subtle. I'm talking bout' all high quality stuff not a $200 Sannyo thing versus soee audio research. Just like the writers try to convince that some mis wired Cd only player for $45K is so much better sounding than a $1,000 SACD player, homie don't think so. Use yoru brain, logic. there is only so many different ways to build an amp, and pre amp, they mostly ahve similar sound, just like CD/SACD players. I use about 6 differetn CD/SACD players, if you didn't know which one was on, you'd never know, different brands, different DAC's....get real already. they all sound GREAT, any difference is so minute, it's not a concern. When MF hears these insane differences, between Cd players, or TT's ya know he's imagining and grandizing the story. It's all entertainment. Then JA brings it all back to REALITY with MEASUREMENTS!! Never did get a mfg response on teh miswired $45K Cd only player, and MF thought it sounded so much better than a mere mortal $1,000 player...shame on his magic ears....it's all just personal preferences, he likes distortion colorations, and miswired sound....hardly science, but just personal preferences. If it's audible, it;'s measurable. Scince is measurable.

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention. What did you say? Same as always?

Short attention span forum, now let me reiterate again...is that a double positive? If you reiterate again, I think ya spin in a circle.

Most of us only need "iterate" once.

I have no great desire for audio reviewers to prove the things they report because:

1) I've already experienced first hand many of the things they routinely report; experiences gained doing auditions in my own system, in the systems of friends (including blind testing), and on visits to shops.

2) I think of the mags as primarily entertainment. I would never dream of purchasing a component based upon a single report by some reviewer. Where I have purchased something unheard it has usually been the case that I have examined the comments of multiple audiophiles (online boards like this one) and/or reviews. Mind you I've taken chances on used stuff with little research but only where I'm fairly certain I can turn over an item with little of no loss.

Really it seem to me that a lot of the fustration hints at lack of willingness to try. Then there those that admit differences exist but deem them insignificant. Well I'm sorry but I have little time for the hurbis of those that insist upon the primacy of their own value judgement... when these types give out an exasperated little, "Come on!", my reaction is generally, "No, go away!"

As for wacky stuff I don't tend to go out of my mind just because some reviewer dares to try something "out there". I I've tried some myself after all, e.g. I have a Bedini Ultra Clarifier Quadri Beam (that I got for $50, no biggie) that I swear did have a benficial effect on some CDs when played on a Jolida JD100 I once owned; generally if I found a CD to have a thin sound I'd give it a spin and many benefited (the bottom end seems to fill out a bit giving the sound a touch of needed body). Since I obtained a considerably better CD player I've never had the urge to try the Bedini, no biggie!

that's funny, Bedinni, and you heard a fuller sound from the CD......of course you knew you did give teh Bedinni a spin, so of course you expected something, anything, and you did. Amazing. What do you think changed on that sealed, piece of plastic with this magic spinner. What could have posibbly changed in a cured POLYCORBONATE disc? they make light fixtur lens out of PolyCarbonate, do you think you could treat teh lens of luminaires, and I should SEE something happen to teh light output, maybe some of that better focus and clarity that it does for the sound? What changed on that disc, that you HEARD!!! Think about how ABSURD that concpt is. CD's are sealed after they are plated, and this spinning device did soemthing to it. Do you think the people at the outfit that sells this crap. has lots giggles when teh oreders come in, and they depost the checks for this crap? Mapingo disc for teh 21st century!!!! What won't an audiophile not beleive? Did any Cd mfg or record company ever endorse this nonsense? Like they discovered it really does change it? Only a certain segment seems to think it does something. Do you use a snap in gas mileage propeller in teh air intake of your car too? That spinning thing, used to be sold on an infomercial!!! Which diet pill works for you, which get rich with no money down scheme did you read and try? Did you send money to Oral Roberts when he asked for money othersiwe God was gonna take him away, he needed several MILLION to live....

Actually what I find ABSURD is being lectured to by an obvious retard who can't even spell "the", I mean... Come on!

Quote:

2) I think of the mags as primarily entertainment.

I hear ya. I guess I should expect more of a grocery store check out lane experience than I do. I tend toward thinking of it all as "journalism" and like the idea of discussing the "philosophy" and "experience" of the hobby.

We may differ in our aproach, but I am well aware of your listening expertise, amigo!

Cheers.

(No flames intended by this post.)

"No flames intended by this post"

OK, I'll take you at your word and hence I feel it safe to assume there can be no offence in my asking you to elaborate upon the meaning of your comment of being well aware of my listening expertise, please do.

TIA

Hi, BJH!

I am thinking you are the same BJH that I see on Audio Asylum, and, for the most part, I tend to think you describe things in a way that demonstrates good listening skills.

As I can recall, I don't think I've been too far off on how you describe the things you hear. So, I give you credit for having "good ears"...which really means that I think you listen to things rather for yourself than the it being a case of you and I always agreeing. It's kind of hard to put down with the keyboard, I hope it makes sense.

What I'd add to my description is that you seem to make up your own mind on things and not join in lockstep with any given prevailing "public" Hi Fi opinion, which is appreciated!

No matter who posts, I always wonder about the 'self delusion' potential of someone's post, but you seem to have been consistent and "objective" in your descriptions of your "subjective" experiences in the hobby. Again, typing isn't as precise about this as if we were having beers together, but I meant what I said in a complimentary way.

As an example, I do not necessarily trust DUP's, Fremer's, or many other people's descriptions of what they hear; I give your posts more weight than others.

Cheers.

If I could type THE I'd be cured. I'm down to my last few symptoms. teh is a tough retard affliction to cure. You should see me eat soup with a fork. They are trying and trying to get me on teh SPOON.

Buddha,

Thank you for the elaboration (and yes, that's me on the AA).

I guess if I accept the flattering compliment to my listening skills then I must in honesty also admit to questionable comprehension skills. You see I rather suspected your (inital) comment to be a veiled affront.

I apologize for that and I'll make the attempt to improve on my comprehension.

Cheers,

bjh