Quote:
I think it is quite prevalent. Audiophiles are often hoping for minute changes with the addition of often expensive upgrades. This is a dangerous combination for objective determinations; we will often think we hear what we want to hear.

You are exhibiting the typical naysayer (fake) suspicion that these tweaks cannot have more than a miniscule effect. Buddha would undoubtedly approve your using his "mote of dust" argument. Mumbo and more jumbo.

Quote:
Additionally, changes made by a product are often described by both the press and individual enthusiasts as "astonishing," "amazing." Those that come next expect to hear at least "something," even if it is not "astounding."

Sorry to hear you've had such limited success and experience with tweaks. Color me shocked.

Quote:
No one wants to be the person with deficient ears and equipment that hears no change even after the "amazing" product is added.

It's a lousy job but someone has to do it. Are you volunteering?

Quote:
Sadly, those that push such products often claim that those that do not experience an improvement are personally deficient, close-minded, and possess inadequate equipment to appreciate the finer aspects of music reproduction. We have witnessed these personal attacks often in these threads.

You forgot to include those that never try these tweaks - they won't experience an improvement, either. It's apparently more fun being a troll. If by personally deficient you mean their hearing skills are undeveloped and/or they're all thumbs when it comes to assembling an audio system, I concur. But if you mean they have some sort of worrisome psychological issue, that will take some more digging. I'll get back to you.

Quote:

Quote:
... it is sometimes understandable why testers don't feel such a need to be rigorous.

It's "understandable" why some testers don't bother to do their job well? I bet that's when they start shouting about all those damned "audiophools" and their "soundstage", "PRaT" and "air"!

Thanks, jj, your comment explains quite a bit.

Yep, it is kinda interesting how some of these same guys, here and other forums, who claim science/scientists and dbt/abx have been caught "doctoring the data", "playing with the numbers" etc when attacking individual manufacturers and whole industries in order to manipulate public opinion. Sounds more like PR people/marketers than real scientists.

Cheers.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
... it is sometimes understandable why testers don't feel such a need to be rigorous.

It's "understandable" why some testers don't bother to do their job well? I bet that's when they start shouting about all those damned "audiophools" and their "soundstage", "PRaT" and "air"!

Thanks, jj, your comment explains quite a bit.

Yep, it is kinda interesting how some of these same guys, here and other forums, who claim science/scientists and dbt/abx have been caught "doctoring the data", "playing with the numbers" etc when attacking individual manufacturers and whole industries in order to manipulate public opinion. Sounds more like PR people/marketers than real scientists.

Cheers.

How typical of agenda-laden opposition to quote-mine, and to remove a comment from its actual context.

Ethics is a wonderful thing, more people should have some.

Quote:

Quote:
... it is sometimes understandable why testers don't feel such a need to be rigorous.

It's "understandable" why some testers don't bother to do their job well? I bet that's when they start shouting about all those damned "audiophools" and their "soundstage", "PRaT" and "air"!

Your quote mining creates a fraudulent context, is furthermore dishonest, and constitutes intellectual fraud.

Once again, you are shown to be dishonest, malicious, and without scruple or ethic.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
... it is sometimes understandable why testers don't feel such a need to be rigorous.

It's "understandable" why some testers don't bother to do their job well? I bet that's when they start shouting about all those damned "audiophools" and their "soundstage", "PRaT" and "air"!

Thanks, jj, your comment explains quite a bit.

Yep, it is kinda interesting how some of these same guys, here and other forums, who claim science/scientists and dbt/abx have been caught "doctoring the data", "playing with the numbers" etc when attacking individual manufacturers and whole industries in order to manipulate public opinion. Sounds more like PR people/marketers than real scientists.

Cheers.

How typical of agenda-laden opposition to quote-mine, and to remove a comment from its actual context.

Ethics is a wonderful thing, more people should have some.

You "understand" others for not being rigorous when testing, while you "play with the numbers" when attacking several individual manufacturers and a whole industry. And all the while you claim to be a scientist/scientific.

Since when does a scientist who "plays with the numbers" have ethics?? Seems you are multiple times more guilty of ethics violations than anyone else here.

Cheers.

Quote:
Since when does a scientist who "plays with the numbers" have ethics?? So why are you chiding me when you are multiple times more guilty??

Cheers.

Q: Why don't you actually address what I said?
A: Because it wouldn't help your defamation campaign.

Cease and desist.

Quote:

Quote:
Since when does a scientist who "plays with the numbers" have ethics?? So why are you chiding me when you are multiple times more guilty??

Cheers.

Q: Why don't you actually address what I said?
A: Because it wouldn't help your defamation campaign.

Cease and desist.

I did address your misleading comments. Maybe I can make it clearer for you. Why are you "sometimes" "understanding" of others lack of "rigorous", as if you are "rigorous", while you are "playing with the numbers" and lacking in "rigorous" yourself when attacking several manufacturers and a whole industry. Is that clearer for you?

Now apologize to the public for attempting to manipulate their opinions through slick, false and misleading postings.

Cheers.

Quote:
I did address your misleading comments. Maybe I can make it clearer for you.

I made no misleading comments. Retract your accusation promptly and in an unqualified fashion.

You have chosen to take Vigne's quote mining and use it to willfully and intentionally misrepresent what my position is in your continued campaign to attempt to cause my professional reputation harm.

I repeat, retract your accusations, cease making further ones, and apologize for your repeated ethical, moral, and logical breaches.

You guys should join the politic scene.

Quote:
Ethics is a wonderful thing, more people should have some.

jj, considering your glancing familiarity with them and general disdain for them I'll bet you had to look up how to spell "ethics".

"Alright, contestants, the category is 'Ethics'."

"I'll take an easy one to begin, Alex, 'Ethics' for $1."

"Good choice, the answer is, 'The amount of honesty in any post by jj."

"What is 'a mere bit', Alex."

"Yes! Good pick up there, most people totally ignore jj."

"Alex, to be honest, I actually thought it was going to be harder than that."

(Loud howls of laughter from the audience!)