put on your flak jackets men.

How do you measure "air" in a component? If the treatement affects an increase in "air", what measurement would account for that?

Quote:
How do you measure "air" in a component? If the treatement affects an increase in "air", what measurement would account for that?

Right. OTOH, how are you going to prove that you hear it?

Kal

The same way I would prove I hear anything, to myself. As JA says, "Perception is reality". If you must constantly challenge what everyone claims to hear, you might as well challenge whether the other person exists or is merely a perception of your own imagination, placed there just to be an annoyance to your belief systems.

If we get into DBT's in this thread, then we descend into a battle that has been fought and no winner has emerged. One of the strongest proponents for DBT's on this forum has enumerated the many ways DBT's can fail - moving your head as little as one inch! They seem an imperfect test of what I hear - what I perceive - when I listen for enjoyment which is the purpose of my system.

The idea we all must agree to all hear the exact same thing in the exact same manner is what has driven these treads to go on and on. If you can accept that others hear and perceive things unlike you do, then there should be no battle at all. If you insist everyone bend to your will, then the fights begin, subjective review magazine go out of print and we all purchase Bryston equipment or a $150 receiver because they would be the same if they measured the same.

So, Kal, do you now want to challenge me on that? If I suggest we all accept that others are different, am I not insisting we all be alike? How Limbaughish that would be!

I'll need more coffee before I head down that rabbit hole.

Your first "example" is an absurdity that intentionally exagerates a situation for your own purpose. It has no basis in reality and none in even the most exagerated of opinions other than your own. It is the "Limbaugh Lie". When will you reach down to argue against the price of expensive cables? That's what always follows in these threads.

As to "air", you simply don't believe such a thing exists in live sound or reproduced sound? Even though it was written about and discussed long before JGH ever used the word? Then why the hell are you here on this magazine's forum? Just to be yet another troll?

If you need a simpler to understand example, try providing the measurement that would indicate improved pacing, timing or rhythm. How about timbre and tone? "Woody", "brassy" or "steely"? Those are all accepted words in anyone's lexicon. What measurement proves these things exist?

Quote:
Show one proof someone heard something that can't be measured.

If you intend to repeat this one question forever to each response you receive, this thread will end quite abruptly. Either you move forward or this doesn't move at all.

Quote:
Has anyone ever proven they can hear something that can't be measured.

Only to themselves. You're already seeing some of that here.

Quote:
Why does anyone believe this stuff without anyone proveing anything?

Same reason people believe in UFOs and ghosts and homeopathy and even god. I guess it's fun for some people to believe just for the sake of believing.

--Ethan

Quote:
The same way I would prove I hear anything, to myself. As JA says, "Perception is reality". If you must constantly challenge what everyone claims to hear, you might as well challenge whether the other person exists or is merely a perception of your own imagination, placed there just to be an annoyance to your belief systems....................

...............So, Kal, do you now want to challenge me on that? If I suggest we all accept that others are different, am I not insisting we all be alike? How Limbaughish that would be!

I'll need more coffee before I head down that rabbit hole.

I was not challenging but playing. Since the original post stated "Has anyone ever proven they can hear something that can't be measured. If someone can prove they can hear something that can't be measured it would go a long way toward justifying some things can't be measured."
So, the premise is that such things are provable on the same objective playing field as an electronic measurement. My objection to this is not whether we can prove what we hear (as opposed to it merely being a consensus) but that there is an objective electronic equivalent to subjective perception.

Kal

Quote:

Quote:
Has anyone ever proven they can hear something that can't be measured.

Only to themselves. You're already seeing some of that here.

Quote:
Why does anyone believe this stuff without anyone proveing anything?

Same reason people believe in UFOs and ghosts and homeopathy and even god. I guess it's fun for some people to believe just for the sake of believing.

--Ethan

Ethan, I don't know if this will make sense to you, based on your system, but on many Hi Fi rigs, there is this thing that happens where the performers seem to be occupying space somewhere in the room; or it may sound as if certain sounds are coming from certain places in the room.

Us subjective listeners call this likely unfamiliar to you event "imaging."

What is the exact measurment of this so called "imaging" phenomenon?

Which 'machine' is better at deteting and identifying this phenomenon, a person's ears in real time, or a measuring device?

I am familiar with your big four, but that is too broad, I want to know the formula for measuring imaging.

How do you set up a microphone in someone's room and measure the imaging? Do you have a machine that can say, "There's Bob Dylan over there, and Joan Baez is behind him and to the right?" How does it point to where the image is?

I'm not talking about some vague generality, either, I want a measurement that directly correlates with imaging.

Thank you in advance for the answer!

Imaging is not a spec, it's a perception. You can measure a system in a room and know if it has good imaging a few ways:

The most direct way is with room measuring software that shows individual reflections. If all reflections are at least 15 dB below the main signal, then imaging should be excellent. Or you can measure comb filtering, which is indirect because it can be caused by things other than reflections. So I vote for measuring the reflections directly. Once all time-delayed reflections are soft enough, imaging will be excellent. It's that simple.

--Ethan

Quote:
Imaging is not a spec, it's a perception. You can measure a system in a room and know if it has good imaging a few ways:

The most direct way is with room measuring software that shows individual reflections. If all reflections are at least 15 dB below the main signal, then imaging should be excellent. Or you can measure comb filtering, which is indirect because it can be caused by things other than reflections. So I vote for measuring the reflections directly. Once all time-delayed reflections are soft enough, imaging will be excellent. It's that simple.

--Ethan

Imaging is a perception. Is it real? Do Hi Fi systems image? Can people hear imaging?

If you can hear it, it can be measured. You claimed this is an indisputable truth. Now, suddenly, it's a preception?

Come on, dude.

I can hear imaging. What is the measurement for that?

Quote:
I was not challenging but playing.

I know that, Kal.

Quote:
OK, you don't like the question but when you answer it I will move on. I have been reading on these forums for quite some time. When I began I had questions and was looking for answers. One side had a much stronger case than the other so I made my decision. I know many things that can be measured but not heard but have never seen the oposite proven. Don't respond if you have no answers. Can the rest of you guys find any proof of this.

So you are only willing to accept answers that validate your preconceived opinions. That's an ego trip of the first order.

Why ask the question if you do not care for a responsethat differs from your opinion?

What measurement would indicate "pace"? It is well known to exist and recognized as a specific quality in music. What measurement defines it? If you don't care to answer a simple question, stop asking questions you don't care to have answered.

That is being an internet troll.

Quote:
Why does anyone believe this stuff without anyone proveing anything?

What are you "proving" by only hearing one side of the discussion?

Quote:
Has anyone ever proven they can hear something that can't be measured.

Why don't you head to Buddha's thread regarding his CES experiment? The first post should answer your question.

Quote:
I can hear imaging. What is the measurement for that?

I already told you - the strength of early reflections. Just because it's not a core spec doesn't mean it can't be measured! Though it is a spec in one sense - frequency response. Reflections cause comb filtering. So once all the response-skewing reflections are reduced enough, imaging is then fine.

--Ethan

Quote:
I already told you - the strength of early reflections. Just because it's not a core spec doesn't mean it can't be measured! Though it is a spec in one sense - frequency response. Reflections cause comb filtering. So once all the response-skewing reflections are reduced enough, imaging is then fine.

Then my headphones would present a perfect representation of the original event.

They don't.

Quote:
Oh yeah, You can't measure air in a system. That is the point. All of the things people claim they hear but can't be measured have never been proven to be heard, ever. Show one proof someone heard something that can't be measured.

I think I understand what you mean. I'll give one example and then speculate on how it might be measured, because I don't know for sure.

Sometimes I find that a claim of an audible improvement (resulting from a particular tweak) is difficult to accept as reported, because of the skeptic in me saying "it just logically can't be". Or, maybe the person reporting it has not controlled all the variables that make a difference, so that it may not be the tweak, but the confounding variables that caused what was heard.

On the other hand, there are tweaks that unquestionably enhance the sound, but not indicated by conventional measurements. The 'unquestionably' is not absolute IMO. But because the tweak seems to be universal-enough over various LPs or CDs, etc., there seems to be no question that it's real.

My personal example is the "capacitor tweak", that I and others have written about in this forum and in the literature. I first did not accept the logic that changing capacitors can affect the sound. Without belaboring the details, I found that the sound of instruments are better separated, like each instrument does not interfere with the sound of the other instruments.

A specific example is a small jazz ensemble recorded on LP. Before the tweak, I would not have expected such an outcome, or even known that I was listening to interfering instruments. Only after the tweak did I realize the difference. This characteristic I heard sounds closer to my own experience with what live ensembles sound like, after the tweak than before, hence the conclusion that it's an improvement.

Are there any detriments to the tweak? Well, there seems to be a slight treble reduction, but I don't know whether to call this an improvement (got rid of some high-frequency junk) or a detriment (rolled-off some highs that should be there). My impression comes down on the side of improvement, because some 'tinkly' sounding instruments like triangles or cymbals sound very clean compared to before.

What might cause instruments to be better separated, or maybe it's better 'imaging'? Imaging is a description of where instruments seem to be located using sound locating ability of your two ears. One of the ways is the differential arrival time of the signals to your left and right ears. Another might be the different amplitudes or relative phase of the signal reaching each ear. Sound locating also depends on the frequency of the sound.

I speculate:

Suppose the improved sound is the result of better signal timing (or amplitude) through the electronics so that as music is playing, the timin (or ampitude) of the signals are more consistent between left and right channels leading to a more focused image. This implies that a slight signal variation between the two channels through the signal path may cause not large image wandering, but a slightly larger image than otherwise, perhaps leading to sounding like instruments interfering with each other.

How might this occur? Parts have tolerances. Each channel of the stereo has slightly different supply voltages. Each active device is different and is powered by those different voltages. If a capacitor is different valued (due to tolerances) between the channels maybe that affects the signal in this way. Perhaps it subtly affects frequency response, and perhaps dynamically too.

End Speculation.

What I am saying in summary is that the difference is clearly audible to me. A sonic image by itself may not be measurable directly, but rather indirectly. The things in the signal that cause sound placement which is heard as "imaging" can be measured.

Although I am convinced that what I heard is real, I do not have two pieces of electronics where one is tweaked and the other is not, to make a comparison of "before" and "after" tweaks. I only have a "before" and then an "after" sound. But I consistently enjoy this improved sound so much more than before, over any volume level, on any music source, that I have little to question that the effect is real. This may not constitute "proof", but it is as close as I can get under the circumstances I have.

to the original poster,

thanks for fighting the good fight, brother. We need a few good men! The zombie mob has grown in number, polluted the water supply and infected the heads of state.

to WTL.. what is this tweak you are talking about?I am Curious

Mr. Winer--

If us religious folks are right, You are in for one hell of a "doh" moment once you die and stand before judgment.. Your science is not sufficient with regard to matters of the divine. Far , far beyond any human comprehension...

Quote:
If us religious folks are right, You are in for one hell of a "doh" moment once you die and stand before judgment

I gladly take that chance, given the odds as I see them. But the more fundamental question is why do you believe this? What evidence have you seen? Not what were you told by others, but what specific reason do you have to believe this?

And why would god damn me to hell for all eternity just because I don't accept his existence blindly? What sort of petty, immature god would behave like that? You'd think god would be above such blatantly human emotions!

Quote:
Far , far beyond any human comprehension...

If "the divine" is beyond human comprehension, then how could you possibly know so much about it? These are all serious questions that I hope you'll answer!

Not to go too far off on a tangent, but it kills me when people claim to know what god wants. As in, god hates homosexuals (even though he "created" them!) Unless you had a face to face conversation with god - and I know you did not - you're merely guessing, and likely parroting what you were taught when an impressionable child. This is one of my favorite quotes:

"When you talk to God it's called prayer; when God talks to you it's called schizophrenia." --A line from The Outer Limits TV show

--Ethan

ncdrawl,
There was a thread titled "New Coupling Capacitors for Superior sound", and another also about capacitors, in this Tweaks topic. You may need to search for it, as it's about a year old.

Very simply put, there were articles in the DIY Audio press about 25-30 years ago that claimed that different capacitor types can degrade the sound or improve the sound. The main identifying difference claims that the different dielectric used in the capacitor can be "graded" from best to worst. A rough ordering from my memory is polypropylene, teflon, and polystyrene were at the top, whereas Mylar, polycarbonate were in the middle, and the ceramic, micas, and electrolytic were rated lowest, for use in coupling the signal from one stage to another in the electronics.

I made changes to my gear which used electrolytic caps in the coupling between stages. Substituting when possible and bridging in parallel when not, I placed either mylar or polycarbonate (paralleled with polystyrene) where feasible, or polystyrene alone when the values can be substituted.

If you look at the referenced thread, I carefully said that the experience I had is convincing enough to me. But, as a scientist/engineer, I cannot claim that the comparison was done scientifically or without bias, because I performed the tweak and evaluated the same. I can claim that what I heard I think is a real difference, based upon my experience in music and having a reasonably good ear. Things that lends additional credence to this is that I tweaked not one piece of equipment, but the others in the chain, starting at the FM tuner, then the pre-amp, then the power amp.

In addition to the capacitor tweaks, later, I also changed the internal cabling and interconnects from PVC insulation to teflon-insulated wire, as well as some segments of wire in the tonearm of the turntable. Each additional tweak improved the sound in the same way, but just a little bit more so. The sum total of the improvements was really surprising, and began to get close to being described as "twice as good", "night and day difference" (maybe not that extreme), or similar.

One really has to be careful here. Although the tweaks authors attribute the sonic improvement to the type of dielectric in the capacitors (and by extension, the type of insulation in the cables), the dielectric is not the only variable that changed. The electrical connections were unsoldered and re-soldered, the lead lengths are different, the physical size of the capacitors are different, the location of the parts in the chassis are different, and so forth.

As for cables, I'm sure that the characteristic impedance of the teflon interconnects I used is different from the coax standard PVC cables that come with the equipment, because the conductor geometry is different, as well as the insulation. That alone could very well be responsible for some difference in sound.

What is difficult to pin down is why the sound improves in that particular way, in progressively greater amounts when more and more caps or cables are tweaked. The common thing is the so-called "better" dielectric. I don't have the answers. I'm reporting what I experienced, caveats and all.

As for measurements and hearing, I still think that if you can hear it, one can measure it with instruments, because you have already 'measured' it with your ears.

Quote:
No one has ever proven to me some of these tweaks actually work.

Then, if you're actually curious and not just a naysayer who wants to stop discussions, you need to try them for yourself. You don't wait for someone to "prove" something if you're truly curious. You go out and try them and prove it in your own system and with your own ears experiencing your own music.

If you only accepted what others have proven, you'd be investing with Bernie Maddof. No one has proven to me they have actually climbed Mt. Everest since I haven't been there with them but I'll take their word for that one. But proving various alternatives in audio is pretty simple stuff if you have the actual will to know. Virtually anything you care to try has a money back guarantee. All you need to invest is the will to know. Just saying it ain't gonna happen here on a forum isn't getting you any closer to the answer unless you've already determined what that answer is without trying anything for yourself.

Having faith in a religious belief is quite different than proving cables are important.

This is the "get up off your butt time".

Unless you're moving the furniture or your speakers on a daily schedule comb filtering doesn't account for day to day variations. Don't believe everything you read even when it comes from someone you've decided has the better argument.

Maybe I could go for this if you had about a dozen sheep you allowed to wander in your listening room everyday. Otherwise, there's another reason for this variation.

Quote:
at different times my system sounds completely different to me. Some days it just doesn't sound as good as others. I don't know if it's my mood or comb filtering or whatever.

It must be God having a joke at your expense. Okay, sorry, I'm only kidding. I'm certain this is due to mood. Same for watching comedians live at a club or on TV. Sometimes you're in a good mood and they're all funny, other days you're not in such a good mood and none of them are funny. This is why they serve drinks at comedy clubs. Seriously. Besides wanting the extra income, everything is funnier, and music sounds better, when you're in a good mood.

--Ethan

Quote:
I have 3 Lascalas and 2 Klipschorns. When I was single, I would come in from a night of clubbing and lay in the floor with the music cranked. I remember how good it sounded. Now when I try it it is mostly bass since I am way below the mid range and tweeters. It doesn't sound near as good as it use to.

I think we're narrowing in on the problem.

Quote:

Quote:
I have 3 Lascalas and 2 Klipschorns. When I was single, I would come in from a night of clubbing and lay in the floor with the music cranked. I remember how good it sounded. Now when I try it it is mostly bass since I am way below the mid range and tweeters. It doesn't sound near as good as it use to.

I think we're narrowing in on the problem.

Especially if he has listened a lot with the music "cranked!" Not good for preserving hearing.

Quote:

Then, if you're actually curious and not just a naysayer who wants to stop discussions, you need to try them for yourself.

Which tweaks have you tried for yourself, Jan?

Quote:

Quote:
at different times my system sounds completely different to me. Some days it just doesn't sound as good as others. I don't know if it's my mood or comb filtering or whatever.

It must be God having a joke at your expense. Okay, sorry, I'm only kidding. I'm certain this is due to mood. Same for watching comedians live at a club or on TV. Sometimes you're in a good mood and they're all funny, other days you're not in such a good mood and none of them are funny. This is why they serve drinks at comedy clubs. Seriously. Besides wanting the extra income, everything is funnier, and music sounds better, when you're in a good mood.

--Ethan

Mood has a great deal to do with how the music sounds, whether live or recorded. I used to notice that often when I got home after work, my system would sound a bit fuzzy to me (of course, this did not matter whether it had been left on or not!). It sounded better after I ate dinner, and better yet as the evening wore on and I became more relaxed. I also found that as I became more relaxed and the system sounded better, I would turn the volume down, as the system sounded louder with time.

^^^^^^^^^^ Maybe you should post that in the Furufraud Demag thread.

Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^ Maybe you should post that in the Furufraud Demag thread.

Are you saying that Arny is a fraud?

He both heard and measured differences!

Talk about differences between channels! 3 dB down at 10K, with the drop getting larger as frequency went up.

Too bad you can't hear that kind of measured 'problem.'

It may be Furufraud, but you sure haven't managed to debunk anything.

Three different objectivists with the same files, three different sets of data!

Arny could hear the difference, you could not.

If there's fraud here, I'd put the onus on you.

Quote:
Oh yeah, You can't measure air in a system. That is the point. All of the things people claim they hear but can't be measured have never been proven to be heard, ever. Show one proof someone heard something that can't be measured.

You sound confused. How can something be "proven" to be heard if it can't be measured? That would explain why you've never seen someone "prove" something they heard that can't be measured.

Quote:

You sound confused. How can something be "proven" to be heard if it can't be measured?

Frog, the answer has been around for over 30 years since I invented ABX, why don't you know it?

Arny, ABX was around before you 'invented' it, it just didn't have that name. The problem is inside of you. That is the part you can't figure out, or refuse to understand.

Quote:

Quote:

You sound confused. How can something be "proven" to be heard if it can't be measured?

Frog, the answer has been around for over 30 years since I invented ABX, why don't you know it?

Troll, you didn't "invent ABX". That's #1. #2 is ABX is a waste of time, it proves nothing other than you like wasting your time (but then, you have a LOT of time to waste, haven't you?) and fooling yourself. That's twice now. Don't mention your ABX crap to me ever again.

Why does anyone believe this stuff without anyone proveing anything?

That's what you said as OP. Prove the existence of "God" with consistent, repeatable, measurable, incontrovertible proof.
I await your "data"!

Quote:

Quote:

You sound confused. How can something be "proven" to be heard if it can't be measured?

Frog, the answer has been around for over 30 years since I invented ABX, why don't you know it?

Regardless or not whether you "invented" ABX, Mr. Krueger, this forum has a rule that subscribers are not to discuss ABX or any other kind of blind testing other than in threads that are specifically concerned with that subject. Please respect that rule.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You sound confused. How can something be "proven" to be heard if it can't be measured?

Frog, the answer has been around for over 30 years since I invented ABX, why don't you know it?

Regardless or not whether you "invented" ABX, Mr. Krueger, this forum has a rule that subscribers are not to discuss ABX or any other kind of blind testing other than in threads that are specifically concerned with that subject. Please respect that rule.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Your post makes no sense at all. The topic itself and the original post cannot be properly discussed with discussing blind tests.

Please explain how a thread on "Measurement vs. Hearing" can avoid talking about blind tests? The original poster even asked about how one proves one hears something, and the way to do that is with controlled blind tests.

Quote:

Quote:

Regardless or not whether you "invented" ABX, Mr. Krueger, this forum has a rule that subscribers are not to discuss ABX or any other kind of blind testing other than in threads that are specifically concerned with that subject. Please respect that rule.

Your post makes no sense at all. The topic itself and the original post cannot be properly discussed with discussing blind tests.

Sorry. Perhaps I over-reacted.

Quote:
Please explain how a thread on "Measurement vs. Hearing" can avoid talking about blind tests? The original poster even asked about how one proves one hears something, and the way to do that is with controlled blind tests.

In your opinion. But I am getting increasingly weary of people posting challenges to others to "prove" what they hear. This is nothing more than bullying - as I wrote many years ago in the magazine referring to this exact behavior, "blind testing is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - and such bullying eventually poisons the forum unless kept tightly restricted.

I'd rather, therefore, err on the side of too much restriction on this subject than too little. YMMV, of course, and presumably does.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
I am getting increasingly weary of people posting challenges to others to "prove" what they hear. This is nothing more than bullying

John, I respectfully disagree. Very strongly. How is it bullying to ask someone to back up a claim? Heck, I'd argue the exact opposite! It is much more bullying to say, "It's true because I say so, end of discussion." It's more bullying because logic and reason are discarded and replaced with might makes right.

IMO, setting forum rules to exclude talk of DBT is about the same as admitting that DBT advocates are correct and there's no good defense for the anti-DBT position.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
I am getting increasingly weary of people posting challenges to others to "prove" what they hear. This is nothing more than bullying

John, I respectfully disagree. Very strongly. How is it bullying to ask someone to back up a claim? Heck, I'd argue the exact opposite! It is much more bullying to say, "It's true because I say so, end of discussion." It's more bullying because logic and reason are discarded and replaced with might makes right.

IMO, setting forum rules to exclude talk of DBT is about the same as admitting that DBT advocates are correct and there's no good defense for the anti-DBT position.

--Ethan

Ethan, as a DBT acolyte, why would you claim certain things don't have audible differences, and justify your claim by saying that you figured that out by sighted listening?

(Hint: Bias is a two way street.)

If you like DBT so much, then where is your data regarding listening trials for the claims you make?

I'd expect a little more "16 times out of 30, I did not correctly identify a given item..."

You never post DBT results, and almost 100% of your proclamations are done as a result of sighted listening.

You don't even walk the walk, yet you opine that those you disagree with also do not?

DBT enforcers should really be accumulating some bonafides, like "I can hear 3 dB down at 10 KhZ 81 out of 90 times," etc.

Heck, a deaf guy could get null results, what I want is some performance data proving what you can hear.

Claiming everything sounds the same is an easy trick. Just as easy as hearing every difference!

Quote:
Claiming everything sounds the same is an easy trick.

Now, that's the truth. I believe I've been saying that for the last few years on this forum beginning with dup, "I cannot be held responsible for what you cannot hear." I think I've said that to you a few times, Buddha. I don't remember seeing you jump feet first into any of these "tests" that have been placed on this forum.

Quote:
Claiming everything sounds the same is an easy trick.

Just as easy as calling someone a snake oil charlatan when you can't hear what it is they are suggesting. Anyone come to mind here, Buddha?

Quote:

Quote:
I am getting increasingly weary of people posting challenges to others to "prove" what they hear. This is nothing more than bullying

John, I respectfully disagree. Very strongly. How is it bullying to ask someone to back up a claim? Heck, I'd argue the exact opposite! It is much more bullying to say, "It's true because I say so, end of discussion." It's more bullying because logic and reason are discarded and replaced with might makes right.

IMO, setting forum rules to exclude talk of DBT is about the same as admitting that DBT advocates are correct and there's no good defense for the anti-DBT position.

--Ethan

The problem Ethan, is that whole question has been put to rest many times. Over and over.

So it's pretty simple. You wanna talk DBT?

Go do it someplace else.

DBT is founded in science, which science says, itself, "we know about maybe..1% of what there is to know. Maybe. truth is, we don't know."

Calling DBT the be all end all in 'truth' is a thought borne in stubborn unchanging ignorance, and shall we politely say.. a lowered capacity for aural recognition within the given DBT advocate. DBT as perfection in auditory testing is a statement borne in ignorance, -ignorance that has been worked on by others- in an attempt to clear it up in the given individual..more times than the average audiophile can humanly remember.

We cannot help that others cannot see or understand these basics components of auditory skills that the VAST MAJORITY of audiophiles HAVE AND RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE.

To put it bluntly Ethan, and to finally say it flat out:

I HEAR BETTER THAN YOU.

I INTERPRET WHAT I AM HEARING -- BETTER THAN YOU.

DEAL WITH IT.

I am sure there are skills you posses that I cannot relate to and do not posses to any degree like you do.

I cannot help that both you and Arny each have within you, a broken or inoperative monkey component on this subject-that you each cannot get over or understand.

These things are entirely YOUR problem and Arny's problem, they are not ours. Stop putting them on our table.

Enough.

I have never found ABX-DBT "discussions" productive in any sense. In the entire 20+ year history of debating DBT's on the internet, and I have seen or been involved in hundreds of such debates on public discussion groups, they always become just ideological battles that do not and have not ever advanced anything, except acrimony. It's mere audio politicking. Like debating the merits of republicanism vs. liberalism, and expecting to come to a consensus about which is the better or superior set of views.

But if Stereophile wishes to continue to allow these poisonous DBT debates on its forums (which some audio discussion forums have banned altogether and are happy to have done so), why not have a rule where the thread originator must use the word "DBT" (or "ABX", as the case may be) in the thread title proper, if DBT's are allowed to be discussed in his or her thread.

This way there's no confusion about whether it is appropriate to debate DBT's in this thread. And people who are sick to death of the DBT wars can know to stay out of the thread, and not waste their time going into it. Otherwise, I simply have no good idea whether DBT's are appropriate to discuss in a thread or not, and many will wonder the same thing. And now that the "DBTologists" from Hydrogen & AVS have swarmed upon this place (to "educate all us audiophools" as they described it), there have been and are going to be a LOT more instances of this DBT bullying in thread after thread.

I have over 7,000 posts on the AVSFourm. I was, at one time, either the #2 or the 3# poster at that forum.

I have not been there in years (4 years?) as the 'high end' area is an exercise in mediocrity, which was and is attempting to tell everyone what things and reality - are.

Quote:
I HEAR BETTER THAN YOU.

I'm quite certain you truly believe that.

Hey, I know a way you can prove it. Not that you would of course. Please show us something you have produced or performed. Anything. Really. Something to give us a sense of your musical aptitude and taste, and your audio chops. Do you play an instrument at a professional level? Or have you ever produced a recording? Great! Let's hear it. Then we can all judge your auditory acuity. Without that, you're as much hot air as any other blow-hard.

--Ethan

Quote:
John, I respectfully disagree. Very strongly.

Well you would, wouldn't you, since while giving "kudos" to someone like Krueger, you stated that John was "known for an anti-science bias". I couldn't disagree with you more.

Quote:
How is it bullying to ask someone to back up a claim? Heck, I'd argue the exact opposite!

Of course you would. You who recently went around here trying to bully people into taking a blind test you weren't even willing to be tested on yourself. I'll tell you the problem with your argument, since you really seem to not understand this. This is an audio forum. People share their opinions on an audio forum. People should have the right to share their opinions without some little monkey jumping on their face, pulling on their hair, and shrieking something about "proving anything they say with DBT's and ABX tests", before they have a right to share their opinion. If you don't agree with someone's opinion, that's fine. No one cares whether you do. Believe what you want to believe, you always do anyway. If you're not sure whether you should believe what they say and want proof, then don't demand this of them, demand this of yourself. No one is stopping you from going to an audio dealer and trying out whatever product is being discussed, are they?

And even if all that weren't so, you have no right to even talk about demanding that someone back up their claim, since you will never back up any claim you make, when this is demanded of you. You even claim that you are immune to bias that you then claim others are nevertheless plagued by. So essentially what I am saying Ethan is, all of your arguments here are completely worthless. Made worthless by your double-standards, self-contradictions, and that good old-fashioned hypocrisy, coming in double-dose packages. I can come up with any number of examples of you being guilty of all three, and so can others here, if you maintain that you're oblivious to your double-standards, and require proof.

Quote:
It is much more bullying to say, "It's true because I say so, end of discussion." It's more bullying because logic and reason are discarded and replaced with might makes right.

Again, you've done that MANY times. Made statements that amount to "It's true because I say so, end of discussion.", which you refuse to provide evidence for. So I find interesting that you admit you are very much a "bully", according to your own assertions.

Quote:
IMO, setting forum rules to exclude talk of DBT is about the same as admitting that DBT advocates are correct and there's no good defense for the anti-DBT position.

Rubbish. All you want to do is engage in arguments and DBT wars. There are plenty of places for that. Try your friend Arny's old stomping grounds, RAO. In fact, if you want to maintain your belligerence, then set a date and I'll meet you there. Provided you ever have the guts to debate me on this topic in an unmoderated neutral forum, where the discussion is perfectly allowed. (Of course I know you don't, so I'm not holding my breath). Just don't think you're going to turn this forum into that one. I've seen how the DBT wars poison a discussion forum first hand. I know what happens when people like you and Arny and jj invade an audio discussion group and start engaging in your DBT agenda, demanding that everyone "prove" everything they say to you, or claim they have no valid basis for saying it.

It isn't about "admitting audio-DBT advocates are correct" (if they were, it wouldn't still have a cult-status today), or that people who aren't silly enough to adopt your pseudoscientific beliefs are incorrect. You see, that's your belligerent anti-audiophile nature talking. It's about having a place where true audiophiles can discuss their audio experiences without constantly having to defend them to the DBT cult zombies.

Given your remarks here and your inherent disagreement with the spirit of the Stereophile forums, I suggest that you are simply on the wrong forum, and should seek one elsewhere that better fits your belief system.

Have a nice day Ethan (looking for a more appropriate forum that meets your needs).

Quote:
KBK wrote: I'm quite certain you truly believe that.

Hey, I know a way you can prove it. Not that you would of course. Please show us something you have produced or performed. Anything. Really. Something to give us a sense of your musical aptitude and taste, and your audio chops. Do you play an instrument at a professional level? Or have you ever produced a recording? Great! Let's hear it. Then we can all judge your auditory acuity. Without that, you're as much hot air as any other blow-hard.

--Ethan

Ethan, we went through this in the last thread, and people are tired of it. So I really do wish you would stop continuing to issue challenges to group members demanding they prove their listening skill to you, when you have refused every attempt to test your "pro-audio" chops in a listening test. Furthermore, this latest "challenge" is reminiscent of your last challenge to me, where the challenge is specifically set up by you to be in your favour. Do you think we can't see that? Not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no logic or reason in equating "musical aptitude and taste" with listening skill, which is what KBK mentioned to you. I can't tell you how silly that is, to suggest otherwise.

And worse than this, you're just not getting it. KBK has nothing to "prove" to you. I have zero doubt his listening skills are far superior to yours, but he doesn't have to "prove" that to me either.