Quote:

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

What's your take on this, May?

Never mind, May. We're at the point where Buddha and Winer start piling on the insults. This thead will be shut down soon.

Quote:
I was just saying DBT's are not the bee's knees.

And I'm just saying a blind test is the quickest route to proving that people who believe they can hear capacitors, and power purifiers, and magic bowls, and all the rest, are full of crap. As you yourself would say, if they can't pick it out blind, then they can't pick it out at all.

Quote:
I think we've made progress, Ethan. You agree that different gear can sound different, and that people may have certain preferences for said gear.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I never said that all gear sounds the same, or refused to acknowledge that some people prefer gritty sounding recordings. I've been into hi-fi since the 1960s, and I've been there, done that, and seen it all. IMO all gear should sound the same! But I never thought that was reality. There's a lot of crap out there - both cheap consumer gear and overpriced boutique junk like toob amps that claim no negative feedback. I've seen and heard it all. Or enough of it anyway.

Quote:
Cheers, man. I think you are a good natured foil.

Back atcha pal.

--Ethan

Quote:
why on Earth would you want it to all sound the same?

So I can buy the cheapest shit available and still enjoy great sound. I assumed that was obvious!

Quote:
Not all deviations from your ideal set of measurements would sound 'gritty,' either.

Right, some deviations give muffled or thin sound, or both. I was thinking no-feedback toobs and vinyl and analog tape.

Quote:
Now you are being a leveller!

Please - I am a rationalist!

--Ethan

Quote:
Except for your tripe ...

See what I mean? Fast and faster.

What's it called when two liars sit around and tell lies to one another?

Buddha and Winer on a thread when that's all they have left.

Quote:
You attack Ethan with proclamations demanding he specify if he's heard the gear in question ...

This is why you aren't getting an answer to your question, you can't read a sentence and not be dishonest.

Here's what Winer posted ...

Quote:
I'm surprised nobody commented on my assumption that the output stage "mod" done by ModWright is probably making the CD player worse. If you think about it, this is the same logic as "cables can only degrade." Here, we start with a perfectly functional CD player that I'm sure has a properly designed output stage.

Here's what I posted ...

Quote:
You're "sure" the player had a propely designed output stage. As you would say, please clarify this and be as specific as possible. Have you ever owned or tested this player? If not, how are you "sure" of its design?

I'm sure we can all find the "attack" and the "demand" in that exchange.

If Winer had ever owned or tested the unit in question, he could have easily said so. He didn't. And he dropped the subject.

We're deep in "made up crap" territory now with you, Buddha. Now you're justifying lies with more lies.

Quote:
Why do you feel the hi end audio industry is somehow different from every other industry and thus not subject to the same laws of physics and science?

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

Quote:
That sums it up perfectly.

Give a hundred chimpanzees a typewriter and enough time and sooner or later they'll put something on paper that makes sense. Congratulations! Which one of you is Cheeta?

Quote:
If something in my system were to change even half a dB I'd know immediately, whether I could see what changed or not (ie: blind).

Remember, you were certain the CD player was defective. You really shouldn't pat yourself on the back so much, it affects your honesty.

Quote:
Just call me a sharpener of sharpeners.

Since you've failed to prove that, I think I'll stick with another title I have for you. Guess what it is.

Quote:
"Objective" science is all about trial and error.

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

'Round and 'round we go, where he'll stop nobody knows.

Quote:
As long as they don't claim their tube gear is more accurate.

OK, how about we say tubes are more linear, the most linear device we have at this time. And they don't require large amounts of feedback to keep them from destroying themself.

Most of us accept that everything is a tradeoff. Some of us can't so they make up crap to make themself feel better about themself. A security blanket for their ego.

Looks like somebody forgot to take their meds!

Quote:
Why can't you answer that?

Once again you go in and don't come out of a very simple sentence. So there's your answer.

Quote:
Looks like somebody forgot to take their meds!

ROTFLMAO!!!

My God, Winer, a third grader uses that. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Buddha, that was my point. Sheesh! When did you get to be such a literalist?

Of course science proceeds by trial and error. But sometimes the results get mis-labeled. The "errors" thrown away often get picked up later, from a different perspective (that damned subjective element again...), only to emerge as more defensible "truths."

All science is either creative, imitative, or some bastard combination of both. Ditto art. Great art and great science, creating breakthroughs that turn these different expressions of the human spirit in entirely new directions, are original. They begin inside the subjective imaginations of the great scientists and artists. Of course, in the case of science, imitators turn the new truths into dogma. In the case of art, new works of genius become "schools." In both endeavors, the imitators flourish until other "subjective" rebels come along.

This is all too general. I notice that Winer has made a school out of those who prefer to follow the demands of their own inner perceptions. "Subjectivists," he calls them. Of course, that makes him an "objectivist," a label he would no doubt wear proudly, the way a circus barker wears a loud sports jacket. Subjectivist and objectivist, arm in arm -- what an ugly pair to show up at any dance. Small minds, apparently, need an "ist" or an "ism," lest they lose track.

Manifestos, anyone?

The biggest problem with DBT will always be time. The time it takes to do a one-sitting DBT will never be sufficient to make musical and sonic judgments possible. You have to live with new gear, and you have to hear all sorts of different types of music, and all sorts of different types of recordings of that music. I cannot see how anyone could claim to make valid judgments (single blind, double blind, or eyes wide open) based on one sitting. There are just too many variables, too many complexities to be explored in one sitting. Great art, including music, is complex. And, of course, who is going to run around the house wearing a blindfold for six months?

Of course, the above doesn't apply to test tracks -- frequency sweeps and such. Nor does it, as you mention, apply to components that display gross differences easily determined upon entering the room. But the devil can truly be in the (subtle) details, in our pursuit of capturing the excitement of the live experience, and it sometimes takes a long, long time for such subtleties to emerge. "Why didn't I hear that before I bought 'em?" is a common complaint. "Because you didn't spend enough time with them," is the obvious answer. And, yes, that includes cables and magic bowls. Perhaps especially cables and magic bowls.

Winer makes magic comb filters, and claims that moving one's head an inch or two can change the entire sonic presentation (of course, if you move your head to the point where only one ear faces the source...but I don't think that was what Winer was referring to). Yet, without even hearing the specific gear, he can proclaim that tubes are inferior, and that comb-filtering will cure any audio ill.

Sounds pretty "subjectivist" to me. Question. When does an "objectivist" become a "subjectivist"? When he has to fabricate the "science" to support the specious argument.

That's me ROTFLMAO so hard I'm working up a sweat!

Here, here's something for you to see.

Sounds like this thread is over.

So we now have ...

Quote:
The take home for me for that experiment was that with consumer electrical toys, one that anyone might have at home, with no special treatment other than changing cables, the differences were apparent!

Quote:
Ethan, I think you should make some room for people having certain preferences.

Quote:
I started the thread pointing out that people heard differences between interconnects, and that they could do this without knowing which cable they were listening to ...

Quote:
Ethan just has a different opinion about the best way to help people most enjoy their hobby, and wants to share...and share in the same manner...over...and over...and over...and over...

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

Quote:
In our cable trials, we didn't directly measure anything other than outcome - sound, and did not directly measure the cause.
Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.

Quote:
"It's not a matter of opinion. One side is right and the other is wrong. One group understands how stuff works and the other side does not....it really is black and white."

That's what the phrenologists used to say about head bumps and racial inferiority.

Quote:
"Objective" science is all about trial and error.

Even the staunchest objectivist should be quick to agree about that.

"Science" is just trying to be systematic and repeatable with its trials and errors.

"Science" also has a very big subjective component, hence the emphasis on repeatbility.

Quote:
There is probably more non-blinded science done than DBT.

Examples are limitless.

Not bad for 32 pages on the Stereophile forum! You've come a long way here, Buddha.

Too bad you've also proven you cannot read a sentence with comprehension. And that you mistake calling someone a charlatan to be discussing how the ART system operates.

And that you are willing to lie about anything. But you have a little "band of brothers" with Winer and ncdrawl in that regard.

We see more and more people are disagreing with Winer about various "improvements" to the sound of their systems and Winer's ego is taking a bruising over that. So much so that ...

Quote:
You've jumped the shark when you have to justify your own existence.

We've found out Winer has a problem when he says something funny and I laugh. And Buddha doesn't like it when I smile.

And the capper ...

Quote:
Good thing you're not the moderator then, Ethan. :-)

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

Goodnight, Gracie.

Quote:
Winer makes magic comb filters, and claims that moving one's head an inch or two can change the entire sonic presentation (of course, if you move your head to the point where only one ear faces the source...but I don't think that was what Winer was referring to). Yet, without even hearing the specific gear, he can proclaim that tubes are inferior, and that comb-filtering will cure any audio ill.

Sounds pretty "subjectivist" to me. Question. When does an "objectivist" become a "subjectivist"? When he has to fabricate the "science" to support the specious argument.

Thank you, Clifton, those should have been added to my list above. There were just so many to go through and I was laughing so damn hard! I swear ... !

Quote:
Great art and great science, creating breakthroughs that turn these different expressions of the human spirit in entirely new directions, are original.

(uh, pssst, clifton, don't bring the "spirit" thing up with winer. he doesn't believe in them so we're all just going along and agreeing with him that it's for certain he doesn't have anything resembling a spirit that any of us can identify.

ix-nay on the irit-spay

ok-ay?)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Go to bed, little guy, you need your rest. There's plenty of lies to make up tomorrow.

Buddha, is it "Belt Frog" or "Frog Belt"? Dammit, now I'm gonna be tossin' and turnin' all night.

Please. I - must - know - now.

I currently have a poor frog trapped in a martini shaker in my refrigerator. And I don't know whether to hit or skin him. Or stick an olive up his ass and pour him.

Would somebody please explain how either of the above is going to improve my system? Or not?

I am so out of the loop.

Right, Jan. I apologize for breaking protocol. Assuming that even objectivists had to read Wordsworth in High School (i.e., "...there is a spirit in the woods..."), I envision Winer stalking the trees out back with a slime gun. Not a pretty picture, even in the imagination.

Quote:
Hey, Jan. How about now you tell us about the Frog Belt tweaks that didn't improve the sound of your system?

bahahahahhaha You're gonna make him get a coronary! If he gets one, please DO NOT resuscitate!!!!

PLEASE, PLEASE CAN WE MOVE THIS POINTLESS DIATRIBE TO THE 'OPEN BAR' SECTION ? ?

Quote:
PLEASE, PLEASE CAN WE MOVE THIS POINTLESS DIATRIBE TO THE 'OPEN BAR' SECTION ? ?

Bach, go write a fugue, it will calm you down.

Quote:
someone figures out that if you lick certain toads, but not others, you will get high ... The government finds out and makes it illegal.

As always. Damn conservatives. They're driven by the Puritan ethic that says if it feels good it must go against god's wishes. What I want to know is how these people can be so certain they know what god wants.

Say, did we ever determine if your cable experiment was non-controversial?

--Ethan

_______________
Power Cords do make a difference! I can definitely hear a difference when I remove my power cord. --ncdrawl

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
someone figures out that if you lick certain toads, but not others, you will get high ... The government finds out and makes it illegal.

As always. Damn conservatives. They're driven by the Puritan ethic that says if it feels good it must go against god's wishes. What I want to know is how these people can be so certain they know what god wants.

Say, did we ever determine if your cable experiment was non-controversial?

--Ethan

Still waiting for Jan to review which FrogBelt tweaks didn't improve the sound of his system.

There are certain audiophiles who are constituionally unable to not hear something, anything, they MUST hear things. To admit they didn't would shatter their fragile psyches.

Jan screwed up and used the term "most." It's not most. It's all, but he wanted to look discerning and didn't think that "most" meant that some would not improve things.

He won't say which ones don't work because he can't. He honestly, physically can't.

Watch the tweakers like him as a group - they treat as Top Secret what gear they use, but will wax phapsodic about a dollop of creme under their coffeee table. They don't listen to music, or equipment, they listen to tweaks.

So, we can keep asking, but Jan's fingers won't allow him to answer that simple question.

That's because he's got a puritanical toad stuck up his ass.

Quote:
Still waiting for Jan to review which FrogBelt tweaks didn't improve the sound of his system.

There are certain audiophiles who are constituionally unable to not hear something, anything, they MUST hear things. To admit they didn't would shatter their fragile psyches.

Jan screwed up and used the term "most." It's not most. It's all, but he wanted to look discerning and didn't think that "most" meant that some would not improve things.

He won't say which ones don't work because he can't. He honestly, physically can't.

Watch the tweakers like him as a group - they treat as Top Secret what gear they use, but will wax phapsodic about a dollop of creme under their coffeee table. They don't listen to music, or equipment, they listen to tweaks.

So, we can keep asking, but Jan's fingers won't allow him to answer that simple question.

It is sad that you have to ask multiple times for a simple answer to something he said. I think he took his ball and went home.

Quote:
He won't say which ones don't work because he can't. He honestly, physically can't.

I agree.

Quote:

There are certain audiophiles who are constituionally unable to not hear something, anything, they MUST hear things. To admit they didn't would shatter their fragile psyches.

I agree.

What Frank said.

______________________
Power Cords do make a difference! I can definitely hear a difference when I remove my power cord. --ncdrawl

Quote:

Watch the tweakers like him as a group - they treat as Top Secret what gear they use, but will wax phapsodic about a dollop of creme under their coffeee table. They don't listen to music, or equipment, they listen to tweaks.

So, we can keep asking, but Jan's fingers won't allow him to answer that simple question.

Why is it that the "major" tweakers are so evasive in answering to their claims? I just don't see how they can be taken seriously when they avoid answering to "said" claims.

I also see more insults coming from "that side", extremely childish.

"They treat as Top Secret what gear they use."

Frustrating, no?

"Why is it that the "major" tweakers are so evasive in answering to their claims? I just don't see how they can be taken seriously when they avoid answering to "said" claims."

Frustrating, ain't it?

Quote:

"Why is it that the "major" tweakers are so evasive in answering to their claims? I just don't see how they can be taken seriously when they avoid answering to "said" claims."

Frustrating, ain't it?

Ha, Ha Geoff. Very funny, definitely not frustrating for me since I have satisfaction in knowing that the "Teleportation tweak" is complete utter nonsence, frustrating, na, I just have a good laugh reading the testimonials. I defy you to come up with a tweak more "looney" than that one. Either way, no worries.
Ta, Ta.

Gosh, am I that transparent? Guess I'll have to mend my ways. LOL

>>> "My only problem with Winer is the arrogance with which he puts forth circular arguments." <<<

Can I add the following ?

Quote from Ethan :-.
>>> "I know of only one "real" engineer who claims competent cables can sound different, and that person has a financial interest in furthering audio bullshit. I have a lot of EE friends, and every one of them agrees with all of my views 100 percent." <<<

I think this paragraph from Ethan is the one which sums up best Ethan's whole attitude to audio.

>>> "I know of only one "real" engineer who claims competent cables can sound different, and that person has a financial interest in furthering audio bullshit." <<<

Ethan knows of only ONE - repeat ONE "real" engineer who claims that competent cables can sound different. Only ONE in a claimed 40 years of Ethan being a 'professional in audio" !!!!!!!! Ethan then dismisses this "real" engineer's experiences with the sentence "But HE has a financial interest in furthering audio bullshit" !!!!!!!!! In other words, because this "real" engineer is putting what he has found into making a product to sell to other people, he is dismissed as "furthering audio bullshit" !!!!

Ethan HAS to call so many things "bullshit". Take the technique of cryogenic freezing - which he includes in his list of "bullshit". Supposing this year - 2009 - it is realised, by more and more, that the people who have been saying that cryogenically freezing things improves the sound are shown to be correct. Ethan cannot come out from under the comfort blanket of demanding measurement proof or authenticated DB tests OR people will begin to ask him the question "Just what the heck have you been doing Ethan, all these past 20 years, when so many people (hundreds if not thousands worldwide) have known about that technique, have investigated that technique for themselves and found that, yes, it DOES improve the sound ?"

Ethan says >>> "I've been into hi-fi since the 1960s, and I've been there, done that, and seen it all." <<<.

How can he have "been there, done that, seen it all" if he does NOT know that (such as) cryogenically freezing CDs, components, cables, wires etc, improves the sound ??????

Now to his next sentence :-
>>> "I have a lot of EE friends, and every one of them agrees with all of my views 100 percent." <<<

If Ethan asks his EE friends the questions
1) "Can cryogenically freezing CDs, components, cables and wires etc improve the sound ?"
2) "Can applying a de-magnetiser to a CD or vinyl record improve the sound ?"
3) "Can colouring the edge of a CD improve the sound ?"
4) "Can adding such as Harmonix discs (the size of a dime) around the listening room improve the sound ?"
5) "Can standing such as a Shakti Stone on top of a piece of audio equipment improve the sound ?"
6) "Can applying a chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of vinyl record, to the outer insulation of cables (including AC power cables) improve the sound ?"

In reply to those questions, his EE friends will pour through the conventional electronic and acoustic text books, answer with a resounding NO and then, I am sure, fall about on the floor laughing !!!!!!!

Could that reaction possibly be because Ethan is asking those questions of people who have NOT tried those things for themselves ??????? Is THAT why they can agree with ALL his views 100 per cent ?????????

What about the people who also KNOW conventional electronic and acoustic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but who also KNOW that what they have HEARD CAN change the sound ?

I am sure that John Atkinson and Martin Colloms (in the UK) know conventional electronic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but they have both written that colouring the edge of a CD improved the sound.

I am sure that John Atkinson and Martin Colloms (in the UK) know conventional acoustic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but they have both written that
positioning such as Harmonix Discs, in the room, give improvements in the sound.

I am sure that Michael Fremer knows conventional electronic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but he has written that applying a de-magnetiser to a CD gives an improvement in the sound.

I am sure that Wes Phillips knows conventional electronic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down but he has written that positioning a Shakti Stone on top of a piece of equipment - in this case - a Sonic Impact 5062 Super T (little !!!) amplifier), gives an improvement in the sound.

Ethan and his EE friends are basically correct. On BASIC conventional theory. Conventional electronic and acoustic theories (the text books) do not allow for all these things mentioned to change the sound !! Where they (Ethan and friends) are wrong is that THESE THINGS DO CHANGE THE SOUND. So, that means that BASIC conventional electronic and acoustic theories are not sufficient to explain the changes in the sound !!

Ethan claims using scientific vigour in what he does.
But, in my opinion (and I might add confirmed by history) scientists worthy of that name Explore, Observe, Investigate, Experiment and, yet again, Explore, Observe, Investigate, Experiment, LONG before there could be the possibility of any meaningful measurements or authenticated data !!!!!!

The only way that Ethan will allow those things mentioned to have an effect on the 'sound' is by using the concept of 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'snake oil', 'audio faith healing', 'effective marketing' and the only way that Buddha will allow those things to have an effect on the 'sound' is by using the concept that all the people who have heard things so change the sound is because those people NEED such 'props', 'talismans', 'rituals', or 'potions', or 'elixirs' in order to help them relax, in order for them to then hear what Buddha says he can hear, quite well, WITHOUT those props etc.

If I agree with Buddha on anything, it is with his comment :-

>>> "I think they (the people who CAN hear those things) are aware of the laws of science and physics, but feel that there is something more to audio than the current measuring models provide." <<<

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Ethan just has a different opinion about the best way to help people most enjoy their hobby, and wants to share...and share in the same manner...over...and over...and over...and over...

Ahem ...

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

Quote:
Ethan, I think you should make some room for people having certain preferences.

Quote:
Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.

Quote:
"It's not a matter of opinion. One side is right and the other is wrong. One group understands how stuff works and the other side does not....it really is black and white."

That's what the phrenologists used to say about head bumps and racial inferiority.

Quote:
"Objective" science is all about trial and error.

Even the staunchest objectivist should be quick to agree about that.

"Science" is just trying to be systematic and repeatable with its trials and errors.

"Science" also has a very big subjective component, hence the emphasis on repeatbility.

Quote:
There is probably more non-blinded science done than DBT.

Examples are limitless.

Buddha doesn't like it when I smile.

Jan,

why dont you just answer Buddha's question?

Far from me to defend anyone, let alone Jan - who I am quite sure can look after himself - but the latest development looks quite ugly so I have decided to 'step in' with some of my (renowned) mature advice. (Smiley face) - I hope !!.

Quote by you, Buddha, on your light display at the CES 2008. :-

>>> "As I've mentioned in the past, the laser light makes the room sound better.

As you know, laser light is coherent and as it passes through the air, it makes the air molecule arrange themselves in a more coherent manner and more directly couples the air to the speaker, making for higher quality sound transmission to one's tympanic membranes.

You can actually turn them on and hear the room get quieter and the sound become more immediate and 'intimate.'

Works best with one unit in each opposing corner of the room.

Much better 'speed' and a more relaxed and natural presentation. The tweak helps get the room out of the sonic equation." <<<

***************

Your bombardment of Jan is displacement tactics. You think you have found a stick with which to beat him about the head. It is like someone like Ethan repeatedly bombarding someone else who might know of your light display, with the demand "Name a room, or rooms where Buddha's light display DID NOT work when you tried it at different times and in different situations".

YOU would know Buddha, but Ethan would not, that if it is the human being's "tympanic membranes" being affected (and that was what was changing the sound) then different situations and different circumstances could cause different results FROM THE SAME LIGHTS !!!!!!!! EVEN, maybe, not working in some situations !!!

But, you know and I know Buddha, if such a non event happens, that it is not something to lose sleep over, nor is it something which becomes seared onto the heart like a scar to be permanently remembered !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It becomes something which one promises oneself to check out when one has time and (further) energy, but, when asked later, you are unable to remember WHICH room, WHICH situation, WHICH year, WHICH country even !!!!!!!!!

To the witness someone 'screaming' incessantly "Name a room, or rooms where it DID NOT work" shows something, in that person, more than curiosity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Similarly Ethan's constant "everything is bullshit" or "implying fraud" shows something, in that person, more than mere irritation !!!!!!!!!!!

Not everyone responds to everything in exactly the same way. Many people know the true story I have told many times.
Peter would do numerous demonstrations to a group of reviewers, or to a group of audio equipment manufacturers, or to a group of audio equipment retailers. He would start by treating one thing in the room to be met by blank faces, no one heard any change in the sound. --- So much for auto-suggestion ---- !!!!! Peter would continue, gradually 'treating ' things, playing the music each time, until after (maybe) the 7th thing he treated, someone would say "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the telephone." That person replies "Oh, well THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"!!

So, the next time Peter does a demonstration he STARTS by 'treating' the telephone as the FIRST thing. He is met with blank faces again. He continues - treating things further until he 'treats' (maybe) the 7th thing and someone says "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the equipment stand." That person replies "Oh well Peter, THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"

THAT is why we list many what we call 'free techniques' which people can experiment with. If they can hear one or more of those techniques give an improvement in the sound then they begin their journey already with a realisation of what COULD BE achieved in terms of improvements in the sound, of what improvements ARE available !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi May,

If I may suggest, the dozens if not hundreds of engineers and PHDs that work at Audio Research, Mcintosh Labs, Conrad Johnson, Atmasphere, Frank Van Alstine, Cyrus Brennenan, Nelson Pass, Vacuum Tube Logic, Balanced Audio Technology, Dr. Edgar etc are competent engineers.

Who would have thought they were incompetent. Of course college text books only provide a basic education so one is able to continue research in their respective discipline. College courses do not provide every last bit of information gleaned from years of research. That occurs at the job site in the respective discipline.