You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

you can always start here.
http://www.tin-foil-hats.blogspot.com/

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
My argument, as was May's argument, was that scientists were hiding their true beliefs out of fear of ridicule. I simply cited different examples than did May.



Quote:
No, you cited a different argument.



Quote:
So let me get this straight. You are now arguing with *me*____about what ____*my*____ argument was?

Look, this isn't complicated. What I am actually saying here is "you cited a different argument". YOU, as in "ewe", CITED, as in "sighted", a DIFFERENT, as in "not the same", ARGUMENT. As in "codswallop". I already provided evidence that shows your premise was wrong, and you have made three responses now where you could have proved it was but provided only confused incredulity. So in whatever point you were trying to make back there with global warming, you tripped over your shoelaces it apears, and didn't even get to the starting gate.


Quote:
Maybe a bag of brilliant pebbles will help you gain some clarity on the absurdity of that.

No, I think I'm pretty clear actually on the absurdity of your arguments here.


Quote:
And we haven't even touched on the other layer of fun E. That being the whole argument was a parody.

I always just assumed all of your arguments were parodies of some sort. Always figured you were playing the role of one of those pseudo objectivist zealots; who doesn't know anything about audio beyond what he reads on the net or in a magazine, and just likes playing the role of the skeptic in debates. I want you to know I won't reveal this to anyone, because I think it's pretty funny. (wink).


Quote:
I'm telling you this to your face but I can't see you getting it.

Trust me. I know how you feel.


Quote:
You will still think Machina Dynamica is legit

What, you're behind Machina Dynamica too? Is Real Traps and DTS also fake companies you created for satirical purposes? I hope not, because this is getting really spooky, Scott.


Quote:
and you will still think that I was actually making a sincere argument for bigfoot and a non-existant trend among scientists to hide their true beliefs about global warming out of fear of ridicule.

You were. I'm afraid no amount of backpedalling afterward can change that fact.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Di'ja figure that out with a DBT or an ABX?


Quote:
No, how about you?

From the desk of Eggheadz Inc.:


Quote:
I actually do things like read journals and understand the meaning of "falsifiable".

....Whereas the rest of us actually do things like listen to music to better understand the meaning of "high fidelity" and the reproduction of music. As we can clearly see, to some of the hopelessly misguided in this hobby, this is still a radical and unproven concept.

"Beyond below above
A gravity that slumbers
At the center of
Places named after numbers
Different kind of love

She was right
She was right there
She was right there all the time
Collapsing all the way...."

- Frank Black

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
[ CITED, as in "sighted"

To easy. Pass.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
you can always start here.
http://www.tin-foil-hats.blogspot.com/

I'm not surprised you had that bookmarked.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
you can always start here.
http://www.tin-foil-hats.blogspot.com/

I'm not surprised you had that bookmarked.

Skeptics find it handy to keep a list of such trivia for those in need.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Skeptics find it handy to keep a list of such trivia for those in need.

Trivial people in need find it handy to keep a list if such skeptics.

Thanks for your contribution. You'll never know what it means to me.

No, really, you'll never know so there's no need for some dumb comment in reply.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Skeptics find it handy to keep a list of such trivia for those in need.

Trivial people in need find it handy to keep a list if such skeptics.

Thanks for your contribution. You'll never know what it means to me.

No, really, you'll never know so there's no need for some dumb comment in reply.

A desperate plea for last dumb comment rights? I think I'm tearing up.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

That was dumb!

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Again, the discussion (???) has moved away from audio again !! Can we get back to audio matters ? Matters relating to sound ? Matters relating to gaining improvements in that sound ?

Your quote Scott :-
>>> "It is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that? I did. I didn't hear any differences but I did try a few of the tweeks being discussed including PB tweeks." <<<

OK Scott. Kudos to you if you did try !!! Many people don't even bother to try !!

The techniques which I remember you mentioning which you say you have tried were :-

Investigating the effect on sound from applying a colour to CDs ?

Your reply was :-
>>> "I have done side by side comparisons under blind conditions and failed to distinguish between colored and non colored Cds." <<<

I asked you the question :-
"Have YOU tried investigating the effect on sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs ?"
To which you replied :-

>>> "The only thing i have done was blind tests on the new clarity forula from Classics which apparently is designed to have the same effect by eliminating all material fromt he formula that can be magnetized. Under blind conditions I could not distinguish between the clarity vinyl formula and the sample they provided with the old formula that contained carbon." <<<

Now, that last one was (in my opinion) not 'investigating the effect on the sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and Cds". It appeared (to me) to be you investigating for any difference in the sound between a disc containing carbon versus a disc not containing any carbon. Which, in my opinion, is not the same as investigating the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs or CDs !! If, however, you were investigating someone's claim that an LP made without any carbon content would sound better than an LP containing carbon, or that a disc without carbon would not need demagnetising then, yes, that is the investigation you did. But it was not an investigation about the effect of actually applying a demagnetiser to LPs or CDs !!

But, if you HAVE actually ALSO investigated 'the effect on the sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs', then, again, kudos to you. Because you will have done what some others have not been prepared to do.

If you have done that and you didn't hear any difference, then that was your experience. Others, however, HAVE experienced an effect and described that effect as an improvement. And, if their experiences correspond with my own experiences, then I am far more likely to agree with them.

However, nowhere have I seen you say that you have investigated the effect of 'treating' a hearing aid battery !! Nor have I seen you mention trying any 'freezing/slow defrost' technique (cryogenic or otherwise) !!

Although after I had used the sentence "It is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that?", you have replied "I did" !!

From the way MJF writes and the experiences he has so obviously had experimenting with numerous things and techniques, over many years, it would appear that what he has "tried" and what you say you have "tried" appear to be poles apart.

Wouldn't it be a nice thought if the world of audio COULD, actually, be of help in assisting such as hearing aids to 'sound' better ? Than what does happen so often - i.e people constantly resorting to links to 'tin hat sites', to resorting to using dismissing tactics such as equating some people's experiences with UFO sightings, alien abductions, to accusations of 'fraud', 'hoaxes' etc.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Again, the discussion (???) has moved away from audio again !! Can we get back to audio matters ? Matters relating to sound ? Matters relating to gaining improvements in that sound ?

Your quote Scott :-
>>> "It is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that? I did. I didn't hear any differences but I did try a few of the tweeks being discussed including PB tweeks." <<<

OK Scott. Kudos to you if you did try !!! Many people don't even bother to try !!

The techniques which I remember you mentioning which you say you have tried were :-

Investigating the effect on sound from applying a colour to CDs ?

Your reply was :-
>>> "I have done side by side comparisons under blind conditions and failed to distinguish between colored and non colored Cds." <<<

I asked you the question :-
"Have YOU tried investigating the effect on sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs ?"
To which you replied :-

>>> "The only thing i have done was blind tests on the new clarity forula from Classics which apparently is designed to have the same effect by eliminating all material fromt he formula that can be magnetized. Under blind conditions I could not distinguish between the clarity vinyl formula and the sample they provided with the old formula that contained carbon." <<<

Now, that last one was (in my opinion) not 'investigating the effect on the sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and Cds". It appeared (to me) to be you investigating for any difference in the sound between a disc containing carbon versus a disc not containing any carbon. Which, in my opinion, is not the same as investigating the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs or CDs !! If, however, you were investigating someone's claim that an LP made without any carbon content would sound better than an LP containing carbon, or that a disc without carbon would not need demagnetising then, yes, that is the investigation you did. But it was not an investigation about the effect of actually applying a demagnetiser to LPs or CDs !!

But, if you HAVE actually ALSO investigated 'the effect on the sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs', then, again, kudos to you. Because you will have done what some others have not been prepared to do.

If you have done that and you didn't hear any difference, then that was your experience. Others, however, HAVE experienced an effect and described that effect as an improvement. And, if their experiences correspond with my own experiences, then I am far more likely to agree with them.

However, nowhere have I seen you say that you have investigated the effect of 'treating' a hearing aid battery !! Nor have I seen you mention trying any 'freezing/slow defrost' technique (cryogenic or otherwise) !!

Although after I had used the sentence "It is so simple and easy to try the technique, so why don't people do just that?", you have replied "I did" !!

From the way MJF writes and the experiences he has so obviously had experimenting with numerous things and techniques, over many years, it would appear that what he has "tried" and what you say you have "tried" appear to be poles apart.

Wouldn't it be a nice thought if the world of audio COULD, actually, be of help in assisting such as hearing aids to 'sound' better ? Than what does happen so often - i.e people constantly resorting to links to 'tin hat sites', to resorting to using dismissing tactics such as equating some people's experiences with UFO sightings, alien abductions, to accusations of 'fraud', 'hoaxes' etc.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I have tried lots of things May. Sometimes the results suprise the hell out of me and sometimes...they don't. But there isn't enough time in my life to try everything. One has to limit their options. My choices made in that regard are informed by numerous things one of which is the likelyhood of something actually working and another is past experience with similar things. I'm not likely to to many more auditions of things like green pens or clarity formulas or freezing anything. I am going to spend my time doing things that are both more likely to make a substantial difference and haver a track record in my experience. For the past few years I haven't even looked at any hardware or tweeks. i have been totally focused on mastering of CDs and LPs. We have been in the midst of a true golden age of high quality reissues on LP and CD and SACD. The thing is the good ones come and go pretty quickly. So I have spent far more time, effort and money and that. I will soon be moving and will have to contend with a new listening room, whatever that turns out to be. I am saving up for the potential costs involved in dealing with that. I do plan to make it a significant upgrade. then i am looking at things like subwoofers, a more powerful amp for my Soundlabs, factory upgrades to the Soundlabs, and a high end computer as a component with a world class AD/DA converter, some serious storage space and all the bells and whistles needed to make the most of such a component. IOW I got better things to do when it comes to audio than freezing pictures of president Obama or my dog. And i certainly am not going to spend money on things like 2,000 dollar LP demagnetizers or whatever Machina Dynamica is charging for a bag of pollished rocks.

I have no problem with people using and enjoying tweeks. I stand by my position that audio is ulitmately a solipsistic endeavour. Perceptions are inarguable. Where I take issue is with the ridiculous explanations that come with the perception.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "I got better things to do when it comes to audio than freezing pictures of president Obama or my dog." <<<

Isn't that latest comment just typical of what I have been talking about. You HAVE to ignore all the quite normal things which people have been doing don't you Scott ? Things such as freezing components (all manner of components), CDs, cables, and instead chose something which you can use as a 'dismissive' tactic. As a weapon. So that you don't have to think about the 'freezing' process !! I ask the question again. "Is THIS what the 'scientists' who could be working on such things as hearing aids are also thinking ?" That they won't even try the technique of freezing simple things because it sounds nonsensical, even though members of the audio industry are using that technique (and have been using it for quite some time) successfully ?

>>> "And i certainly am not going to spend money on things like 2,000 dollar LP demagnetizers" <<<

I am sure you could still TRY (even borrow from someone) a demagnetiser without actually purchasing one if you don't want to.

You see, Scott, it is not what applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs does, it is WHAT the results are telling you (or should be telling you) if you WERE prepared to investigate more !!!!.

Supposing the demagnetiser is doing something else ? Something to the plastic, nothing to do with induced magnetisation but using a polarised object such as a demagnetiser to change something ? An induced polarity in the plastic? Then, what could a demagnetiser do if applied to the plastic case of a hearing aid ????????????

Whilstever there are people in the audio world constantly attempting to 'rubbish', 'discredit' other peoples observations, then scientists (yes scientists) will be reluctant to put their heads above the parapet and be prepared to seriously investigate.

J'accuse !!!!!

To use an example. Doesn't anyone (any of the researchers into hearing aids - people who are supposed to be seriously researching and can research such things without any fear of damaging someone's personal hearing aid!!!) even think of trying the experiment of applying such as a demagnetiser to hearing aids to see (hear) what happens ?

Could such researchers (scientists ???) have been 'put off' doing such experiments by such as the Ethan Winer's of this world implying fraud (of the Furutech device) or implying dishonesty by the heads of Furutech - to quote Ethan saying :-
>>> "Likewise for demagnetizing CDs and LP records, the subject of this thread. Unless the heads of Furutech are idiots, which I doubt, all that's left is dishonesty." <<<

Ethan, et al, have the freedom of free speech but with that freedom comes responsibility - the responsibility to 'weigh ones words' carefully.

As exemplified by Stephen, the moderator :-
>>> "We only ask that you express yourself in a mature, thoughtful, respectful, and productive manner." <<<

To give another example. If one can apply a chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of vinyl records, to the outer (plastic) insulation of cables, (all cables, including AC power cables) and gain an improvement in the sound, then why can't the 'scientists' investigate applying the same chemical to the plastic case of hearing aids and see what happens ????????

You use mockery and ridicule too easily and too readily, Scott.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

>>> "I got better things to do when it comes to audio than freezing pictures of president Obama or my dog." <<<

Isn't that latest comment just typical of what I have been talking about. You HAVE to ignore all the quite normal things which people have been doing don't you Scott ?

May I'm not making this stuff up. I have literally run across someone on Audio Asylum who was telling us about the benefits of freezing photographs and leaving them in the freezer. So are you going to suggest that freezing CDs is normal while freezing photos is...abnormal? If so this would be a case of kettle and pot and accusations of blackness.


Quote:
Things such as freezing components (all manner of components), CDs, cables, and instead chose something which you can use as a 'dismissive' tactic. As a weapon.

It is not a weapon May. It is simply a point that there are literally too many things that various people believe work for me to try. If you wish to be disrespectful towards those who actually believe that freezing photos will improve the sound of their system be my guest but you might want to consider that old proverb about glass houses and the tossing of stones.


Quote:
So that you don't have to think about the 'freezing' process !! I ask the question again. "Is THIS what the 'scientists' who could be working on such things as hearing aids are also thinking ?"

God I hope so! While as hobbyists there is no harm done with playing with tweeks in the world of science such endeavours would be a tragic waste of time and funds.


Quote:
That they won't even try the technique of freezing simple things because it sounds nonsensical, even though members of the audio industry are using that technique (and have been using it for quite some time) successfully ?

should they also try freezing photos of their dog? There is a near infinite number of possible options if we are going to ignore known mechanisms of cause and effect. where should one draw the line? Have you tried freezing photos? If it works then what? Freeze couch pillows? News articles? charcoal sketches? Dead animals? Ears of corn? maybe we should try leaving photos out in the sun? maybe we should tie them to the backs of domesticated animals? Where do you draw the line? you are hardly in a position to call any of these options absurd. If you want to seperate your "concepts" from the other "concepts" I just invented then *you* will have to do the obvious and demonstrate that these things are not the result of mechanisms already known to exist. That being bias effects. IF YOU WANT SCIENTISTS TO INVESTIGATE YOUR CLAIMS you will certainly have to demonstrate to them that your claims aren't just another garden variety of bias effects. Their time and funding is limited too. They also have to makes choices about their research based on similar criteria that I already described. They don't have the time or resources to investigate anything just because some Joe said it works and they know so because they tried it.


Quote:
>>> "And i certainly am not going to spend money on things like 2,000 dollar LP demagnetizers" <<<

I am sure you could still TRY (even borrow from someone) a demagnetiser without actually purchasing one if you don't want to.

I live in West Hills Ca. Do you know anyone near by who would be interested in loaning one to me?


Quote:
You see, Scott, it is not what applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs does, it is WHAT the results are telling you (or should be telling you) if you WERE prepared to investigate more !!!!.

Like I said May. Life is too short and I have other things on list of things to do when it comes to audio. Things I know will make a substantial difference for me.


Quote:
Supposing the demagnetiser is doing something else ? Something to the plastic, nothing to do with induced magnetisation but using a polarised object such as a demagnetiser to change something ? An induced polarity in the plastic? Then, what could a demagnetiser do if applied to the plastic case of a hearing aid ????????????

If we suppose that then we are going to have to dismiss a good deal of anecdotal evidence from the very folks who are proponents of LP demagnetization. You see, the same folks who have reported positive results with the demagnetizer have consistantly reported the same positive results in their head to head comparisons with the new Clarity vinyl formula. They have also reported that the demagnetizer has no effect on the Clarity vinyl formula. so how do you resolve your "concept" with those listener results? Am I suppose to believe part of what these folks say that is in agreement with your "concepts" but toss out their reports that conflict with your "concepts?"

Note that I didn't mention that we would also have to dismiss a great deal of empirical evidence on the nature of plastics. what exactly are you supposing is being "polorized?" certainly not the vinyl molocules. That would be disasterous.


Quote:
Whilstever there are people in the audio world constantly attempting to 'rubbish', 'discredit' other peoples observations,

Yes May, some people do that. Clearly I do not. You did understand what was meant when I said "perceptions are inarguable." did you not?


Quote:
then scientists (yes scientists) will be reluctant to put their heads above the parapet and be prepared to seriously investigate.

I really don't think you have to worry about the fears of scientists.


Quote:
You use mockery and ridicule too easily and too readily, Scott.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Perhaps. But I have resisted the temptation several times in this one post. But the problem with that is it seems half the people here don't know when I am actually using mockery and when I am not. Even when I explain it.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work. Only they do. Things like cell phones, HDTV's, automobiles, long distance communications ...

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 15 hours ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Hi Scott,

Just a quick note about your comment below. No biggy, just a quick correction.


Quote:
Note that I didn't mention that we would also have to dismiss a great deal of empirical evidence on the nature of plastics. what exactly are you supposing is being "polorized?" certainly not the vinyl molocules. That would be disasterous.

There are dipole changes when a charge is applied to plastic, nearly all insulating materials.


Quote:
The electric field between the capacitor plates will induce dipole moments in the material between the plates. These induced dipole moments will reduce the electric field in the region between the plates.

Another article

Quote:
The constant is dependent on two molecular level properties: the permanent "dipole moment" and the "polarizability" or the induced change in dipole moment due to the presence of an electric field.

Hope this helps.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work. Only they do. Things like cell phones, HDTV's, automobiles, long distance communications ..."

j_j gets the gold star for the silliest post of the day.

Of course, your strawman argument is absurd. Not only do the cell phones, automobiles, long-distance communications, etc. work, the things that seem to upset you so much work, too. That's because there's no contradiction between the things you dismiss out of hand and the science you protect with such furvor. Rest easy, soldier, everything's OK. Science has not been violated.

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Hi Scott,

Just a quick note about your comment below. No biggy, just a quick correction.


Quote:
Note that I didn't mention that we would also have to dismiss a great deal of empirical evidence on the nature of plastics. what exactly are you supposing is being "polorized?" certainly not the vinyl molocules. That would be disasterous.

There are dipole changes when a charge is applied to plastic, nearly all insulating materials.


Quote:
The electric field between the capacitor plates will induce dipole moments in the material between the plates. These induced dipole moments will reduce the electric field in the region between the plates.

Another article

Quote:
The constant is dependent on two molecular level properties: the permanent "dipole moment" and the "polarizability" or the induced change in dipole moment due to the presence of an electric field.

Hope this helps.

I thought May may have been refering to the actual polarity of the molocules themselves. I saw no reason to consider static electric charge because it is well known that this is an issue with LPs and we have solutions for it that cost a great deal less than the Furutech. But thanks.

SAS Audio
SAS Audio's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 15 hours ago
Joined: Jun 6 2007 - 6:56am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
Hi Scott,

Just a quick note about your comment below. No biggy, just a quick correction.


Quote:
Note that I didn't mention that we would also have to dismiss a great deal of empirical evidence on the nature of plastics. what exactly are you supposing is being "polorized?" certainly not the vinyl molocules. That would be disasterous.

There are dipole changes when a charge is applied to plastic, nearly all insulating materials.


Quote:
The electric field between the capacitor plates will induce dipole moments in the material between the plates. These induced dipole moments will reduce the electric field in the region between the plates.

Another article

Quote:
The constant is dependent on two molecular level properties: the permanent "dipole moment" and the "polarizability" or the induced change in dipole moment due to the presence of an electric field.

Hope this helps.

I thought May may have been refering to the actual polarity of the molocules themselves. I saw no reason to consider static electric charge because it is well known that this is an issue with LPs and we have solutions for it that cost a great deal less than the Furutech. But thanks.

No problem Scott. Just wanted to clear up any possible misunderstandings, public misunderstandings as well.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work. Only they do. Things like cell phones, HDTV's, automobiles, long distance communications ...

JJ, guys like you often forget many of the things they know and think of as very very basic that are not common knowledge. I have tried the tact of explaining to biblical literalists how we know the universe is much older than 6K and change by things as simple as starlight( I know the whole evolution thing is very sensitive "I didn't evolve from no munky!") I explain how we use paralax to triangulate the distance from the earth to the nearest stars as the earth travels around the sun. I explain how we have determined the material content of stars by the energy level of the spectrum of their radiation. I explain how we use these two bits of info to deduct the distance of other stars. I then explain how we know the speed of light is a constant. I then try to show how that and the known distance of stars shows the universe is far far older than they think. I usually then get the question "what is paralax?"

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
So are you going to suggest that freezing CDs is normal while freezing photos is...abnormal? If so this would be a case of kettle and pot and accusations of blackness.

See? That's exactly what May is talking about. You don't know what you don't know, but you make the accusation anyway. Step back a bit here, Scott, and realize what you've just done.


Quote:

Quote:
So that you don't have to think about the 'freezing' process !! I ask the question again. "Is THIS what the 'scientists' who could be working on such things as hearing aids are also thinking ?"

God I hope so! While as hobbyists there is no harm done with playing with tweeks in the world of science such endeavours would be a tragic waste of time and funds.

Ohhhhhhhhhh. It's almost painful to watch someone impale themself like this.


Quote:
should they also try freezing photos of their dog? There is a near infinite number of possible options if we are going to ignore known mechanisms of cause and effect. where should one draw the line? Have you tried freezing photos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KK3FlVC2w&feature=related

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work.

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people actually tried the theories they denounce, jj wouldn't be here.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work.

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people actually tried the theories they denounce, jj wouldn't be here.

Really? But I have tried some of them and JJ is still here. Oh well, guess that didn't work out quite the way you saw it. That is if you think my critcism of ridiculous explanations as to *how* they work is the same as a denouncement.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
See? That's exactly what May is talking about. You don't know what you don't know, but you make the accusation anyway. Step back a bit here, Scott, and realize what you've just done.

What accusation would that be? Are you actually reading what i am writing and understanding it? What is it *you* think I have just done?


Quote:

Ohhhhhhhhhh. It's almost painful to watch someone impale themself like this.

Don't worry. I'm fine. maybe you are just seeing things.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"Really? But I have tried some of them and JJ is still here."

Which ones did you try? Zorak says he's fascinated.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Back in the late 80s an old audiophile friend of mine was heavy into the Peter Belt tweeks. He brought over a bunch of stuff and we tried it out.

then there was another friend that insisted that I try both a blue pen and a green pen on my CDs. I happened to have one duplicate CD of my own one of which still is blue and he had one other CD that I also owned that he had painted up green.

I tried a Milti Zerostat

VPI magic bricks

Tweak contact enhancer

Those are the ones I tried and couldn't make out any differences.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Back in the late 80s an old audiophile friend of mine was heavy into the Peter Belt tweeks. He brought over a bunch of stuff and we tried it out.

then there was another friend that insisted that I try both a blue pen and a green pen on my CDs. I happened to have one duplicate CD of my own one of which still is blue and he had one other CD that I also owned that he had painted up green.

I tried a Milti Zerostat

VPI magic bricks

Tweak contact enhancer

Those are the ones I tried and couldn't make out any differences.

Yet another Episcopalian! That explains everything.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Nope. agnostic atheist. I did go to a catholic school though.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
But the problem with that is it seems half the people here don't know when I am actually using mockery and when I am not. Even when I explain it.


Quote:
"Agnostic atheist"

GoodGrief, Scott, take a side on something.

At 14 years of age I had the guts to stand up in my Catholic school and declare I was an atheist.

I can understand Elvis wearing a crucifix and a Star of David to, as he said, cover his bases but an "agnostic atheist" is just someone with no conviction of any kind - someone wanting to argue all sides without ever taking a position they believe in. You know, the same way you argue audio.

Maybe this is why people don't get it when you are using mockery - even when you explain it. Maybe "mockery" shouldn't be in your vocabulary. Possibly "mockery" isn't what people want to hear from someone who doesn't do "mockery" well, particularly when you need to explain it to them. Even more so when you have to explain it to them - and then you argue the other side of the debate! Maybe you should stop using "mockery" all together, Scott. Maybe you should consider just what positions you do hold and who you should be arguing against.

And you should find out what being an Episcopalian means in Space Ghost world.

You missed the May/photo reference and you missed the Episcopalian reference. I'm not sure which is worse. I will remain agnostic on this topic.

Just a few friendly suggestions, guy.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

>>> "should they also try freezing photos of their dog? There is a near infinite number of possible options if we are going to ignore known mechanisms of cause and effect. where should one draw the line? Have you tried freezing photos? If it works then what? Freeze couch pillows? News articles? charcoal sketches? Dead animals? Ears of corn? maybe we should try leaving photos out in the sun? maybe we should tie them to the backs of domesticated animals? Where do you draw the line?" <<<

Again with the tactic of introducing extremes. You have done it again !! I suggested a simple technique which anyone can try - INCLUDING the scientists who might be working on hearing aids, and you launch into the tactic of trying to make it appear that I am making outrageous demands on them by digging up what extreme examples you can think of.

The hearing aid is as much an audio product as all other audio products. It is simple to do quickie experiments to see of there is anything in a technique which has worked for other audio things. And, for NUMEROUS other things relating to audio at that !!!! In my opinion, those scientists, working on hearing aids, should already be there, trying !! In an interview which Keith Howard did with Ed Meitner in 2001, Ed Meitner (who introduced, to the world of audio, the technique of freezing at cryogenic temperatures over 20 years ago) said :-

>>> "As well as freezing CDs another thing that happened which was probably more interesting was that Analogue Devices came to us and we treated some 20-bit DAC chips. They sent out untreated and treated chips for people to try and again the same thing happened: the treated ones sounded better......... There was never a failure. We treated tons of solid-state stuff, whole circuit boards, and the only bad thing that happened was that the electrolytic capacitors would lose their shrinkwrap. That was it. We even treated speaker voice coils." <<<

Are you REALLY suggesting, Scott, that the scientists are NOT trying such things because of lack of time and lack of funds ????

>>> "While as hobbyists there is no harm done with playing with tweeks in the world of science such endeavours would be a tragic waste of time and funds.

Again with the excuses of time not available or funds not available for 'scientists' to try simple experiments - IF they actually wanted to !!! It is as simple to freeze and defrost a hearing aid, or a hearing aid battery, as it is as simple to freeze and defrost a CD !!!!!!!!!!! As it is a simple to freeze and defrost a set of headphones as it is as simple to freeze and defrost a cable. It is the WILL to try such things (and the desire to find things out) which can be the thing which is lacking - not the time and funds !!!!

The tactic of using extremes is used endlessly by certain people as a seemingly logical argument. Say, hypothetically, you suggest to someone to try changing the direction in which a cable is connected in an audio system as an experiment because some people are reporting that it has an effect on the sound and some bright spark will jump in saying "If I tell you that if you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge you will be able to fly, would you believe me, would you do it ?" Again, tell someone that by applying a specific colour to a CD you could improve the sound from that CD and someone will jump in saying "Sheesh, you folks will believe anything."

When some techniques are as easy as making a sandwich, the many people who HAVE tried some of the techniques find the resistance being shown by others to trying such things quite unbelievable.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
GoodGrief, Scott, take a side on something.

I have. Isn't that why May, MJF and you have your panties in a bunch? I have taken the stand that subjectivism in audio does not have to be accompanied by irrationality and ignorance and an ego driven belief of personal infalability.


Quote:
At 14 years of age I had the guts to stand up in my Catholic school and declare I was an atheist.

I'm sure that went over just as well as my declaration to lunitic fringe subjectivists that their *explanations* for their perceptions suffer from some fundamental problems. And that their certitude in those explanations is unfounded. Obviously some people don't want to take a good hard look at their beliefs.


Quote:
I can understand Elvis wearing a crucifix and a Star of David to, as he said, cover his bases but an "agnostic atheist" is just someone with no conviction of any kind - someone wanting to argue all sides without ever taking a position they believe in.

You sound like the character John Cleese played in Life of Brian. "He is the true messiah, and I should know. I've followed enough of them!" Agnosticism is something much needed on by both lunitic fringes in audio. But it seems ego will not allow some folks to question their beliefs. Folks like the ones in both luntic fringes are the equivalent of religious fundamentalists. They are utterly convinced that they have a monopoly on "the truth" and you are either with them or against them. Here you are demanding that I share your fundamentalist mind set and choose a side. No think you. I will keep thinking instead of juste believing. I am sorry that such a position is so bewildering.


Quote:
You know, the same way you argue audio.

Rationally? So sorry. I left the subjectivist/objectivist lunitic fringe fued a long time ago. sorry i don't fit your molds or make the same tired ignorant arguments.


Quote:
Maybe this is why people don't get it when you are using mockery - even when you explain it. Maybe "mockery" shouldn't be in your vocabulary. Possibly "mockery" isn't what people want to hear from someone who doesn't do "mockery" well, particularly when you need to explain it to them.

Maybe I do it too well. religious zealots have a hard time with parody when they are the butt of the joke. They have a hard time recognizing it and a problem appreciating it. My mockery is not for the benefit of the lunitic fringe. It is for the benefit of those tired of the same old tired crap that both sides re-live on a daily basis like Groundhog day.


Quote:
Even more so when you have to explain it to them - and then you argue the other side of the debate! Maybe you should stop using "mockery" all together, Scott. Maybe you should consider just what positions you do hold and who you should be arguing against.

I know where I stand. IMO anyone with half a brain who is not up to their ears in their dogmatic beliefs about audio should have no trouble understanding what I am saying and understand when I am using parody to make a point. If you think I am arguing *either* side of the lunitic fringe subjectivist/objectivist debate you are totally missing the point. that is not my fault. It seems you are asking me to shut up because you can't follow what I am saying. Maybe you should spend more effort on thinking and less on whining.


Quote:
And you should find out what being an Episcopalian means in Space Ghost world.

Odd advice coming from someone who wants me to shut up becuase he hasn't made the effort to get what I am saying.
"Do as I say but not as I do?" No thanks.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

May, for you to call anything an extreme is a form of self parady that is probably lost on you. So freezing an ear of corn for better sound is an extreme but putting a bag of pollished rocks in the room as an acoustic treatment is...what? What exactly is the difference between freezing a photo and a clever clock? That is an honest question. Just tell me the difference. try not to go on some irrelevant rant about me and my state of mind. Just tell me what makes the clever clock different from the freezing of the photo. How is one an extreme and not the other?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"Back in the late 80s an old audiophile friend of mine was heavy into the Peter Belt tweeks. He brought over a bunch of stuff and we tried it out.

then there was another friend that insisted that I try both a blue pen and a green pen on my CDs. I happened to have one duplicate CD of my own one of which still is blue and he had one other CD that I also owned that he had painted up green.

I tried a Milti Zerostat

VPI magic bricks

Tweak contact enhancer

Those are the ones I tried and couldn't make out any differences."

So, let me get this straight, Scottie, me lad. You tried these tweaks about 20 some odd years ago and you heard no difference? Your friend was heavily into PB tweaks but could either not get them to work in your system or you were unable to hear what he could? You tried a blue pen and green pen on a CD? And Tweek contact enhancer and the VPI Brick. Oh, and a Milty Zero Stat. Big friggin' deal! That's some attitude ya got there for such an itty-bitty effort. And sooo long ago.

And you wanted to be my latex salesman!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Thanks, Scott, I haven't had a ROTFLMF'ingAO moment for quite some time on this forum.

I had to stop reading that post of yours a half dozen times to wipe the tears from my eyes. That was the most absurd piece of theater I've read in ages! The righteous indignation! The "I am willing to stand against all those who do not believe my wavering commitment to being committed to nothing" superiority complex revved up to 12,000 RPM!!! And then the "I am standing here but I can easily stand there too" next line. The sheer sense of not recognizing reality when it smacks you in the face approach you take to believing you are not believing anything other than what you believe you might not believe if anyone proved you wrong which you wouldn't believe because you would have to beleive in something to believe what they proved ...

Ionescan! is the best way to describe what you don't do but believe you would if you believed in anything. I can see a true "Rhinoceros" moment in you, watching all but yourself turning into beasts, you alone unchanged by conformity.

Except in your case it doesn't work.

You lack real commitment to not being committed to anything. I don't believe you believe you don't believe but would if it were not too much trouble - as the Method folks say. You're not living the moment. You're just reciting the lines.

Too Episcopalian!

I did particularly like the "I can argue any side because I am committed to none" attitude. And the way you wrote it like you truly believe it while obviously you can't or you would be believing in something!

This one ...


Quote:
Obviously some people don't want to take a good hard look at their beliefs.

... from an agnostic atheist! Pure head in the sand "Green Acres" stuff!


Quote:
Here you are demanding that I share your fundamentalist mind set and choose a side. No think you. I will keep thinking instead of juste believing. I am sorry that such a position is so bewildering.

Great turn of a phrase there, Scott! (and it's "thank you" - I know, too easy)

Calling me a "fundamentalist" when I've already told you I'm an atheist. Not believing what you should believe about what I believe just because I told you so.

LOL! Not many people would be that confused about belief systems.

Don't be sorry you can only believe in not believing in anything. Many "agnostic atheists" suffer from the same problem of not being committed to being right but waiting for someone to prove them wrong. If you stopped not believing in anything but always remained indecisive about everything you might believe - that ol' "agnostic atheist" thing, you'd have to leave the forum. You wouldn't be any fun any more.

And if you believe that ...

Oh! Wait! Maybe that was another failed attempt at mockery on your part.

It's so damned hard to tell futile attempts at mockery from wildly absurd theatrics in your writing.

And I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this - line by line.

Oh, yawn!

Believe me, Scott, you don't have to.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I have to ask, Jan, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?

Are you one of those people who confuses faith with conclusions based on data?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
And you wanted to be my latex salesman!

I don't do low budget unless it's a really good script or involves really good actors. preferably both. I gotta make a livin. By the way, latex is only a last resort these days. Silicone and Prosaide are SOTA.

Go ahead and google it.

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
And I bet you'll feel compelled to respond to this - line by line.

Nope. To much garbage to sift through. There are more things in audio than the Hatfields and the McCoys. Until you can wrap your head around that my assertions will continue to confuse and frustrate you.

Not_my_problem.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I have to ask, Jan, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?

Are you one of those people who confuses faith with conclusions based on data?

Dont get into it with Jan. I guess you are relatively new at the forum...but the Jan tarpit...yeah..steer around that one. more dangerous than the black clap.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

I wish you the very worst, ncdrawl.

Why is it you cause so much trouble on this forum?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I have to ask, Jan, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?

Said, Jan, playing the Martin role to jj's Lewis, "I don't know, jj, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?"

(I hope this is a better joke than any of the others you've posted.)

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:


Quote:
I have to ask, Jan, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?

PLONK

Quote:

Said, Jan, playing the Martin role to jj's Lewis, "I don't know, jj, why is it funny that an atheist has no faith?"

(I hope this is a better joke than any of the others you'e posted.)

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Until you can wrap your head around that my assertions will continue to confuse and frustrate you.

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!

You keep on not believing that, Scotty, my boy.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

You didn't manage a real knee slapper there, jj.

But then I wasn't expecting much from you.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
religious zealots have a hard time with parody when they are the butt of the joke. They have a hard time recognizing it and a problem appreciating it. My mockery is not for the benefit of the lunitic fringe. It is for the benefit of those tired of the same old tired crap that both sides re-live on a daily basis like Groundhog day.

I guess if there's a joke to be had here, it's in you thinking that your so-called "mockery" is anything particularly funny, clever or original. Especially while you are busy trying to explain it (though I admit, that part is kind of funny). Or you thinking you have a keener sense of humour and are more enlightened or intelligent than your subject. When in truth, you are simply fooling yourself with false beliefs, in the throes of attempting to protect yourself from such. You may think you're above that and on the right side of scientific doctrine, but you're not, because self-delusion happens a lot easier than you think. In ways you haven't been able to pontificate yet. You may think you are different from the religious zealots with your out of hand dismissal of empirical evidence and advanced audio ideas, not part of the "lunatic fringe objectivists".... but about the only difference I can see between you and the rest of the dismissive dogmatists is that you own a CD with a blue ring around it. I guess you're also not aware that your "I have taken the stand that subjectivism in audio does not have to be accompanied by irrationality and ignorance and an ego driven belief of personal infalability" is the stand that every lunatic fringe objectivist takes. Even Krueger calls himself a "subjectivist", and arguably, there's isn't a soul on this planet who doesn't have a greater "ego-driven belief of personal infalability" than him.

You may think that you're not putting out the same old tired crap on a daily basis a la "Groundhog Day" as the other LFO's do. But your tired old arguments in response to high end audio products and practices, are the same ones I have been witnessing for two decades. Or, and I really love this, not realizing the irony of how these oh-so-clever statements about others "not getting it" really apply to -you-. e.g. Me not getting the true nature of MD's site and or products. Or how its "others" that have a hard time recognizing parody and humour, when you don't get the humour of how your humour is really based on your own ignorance of audio. In this way, you're like the motorbikers who laughed along with John McCain at a rally last year at Obama's "silly idea" of telling them that keeping their tires inflated is a way to lower their gas costs.... Imagine Big John McCain and a rowdy group of tough bikers all laughing at the very idea that such a small and seemingly irrelevant practice could actually affect their gas savings. As Obama himself put it when he was showed the tape, they were essentially rejoicing in their own ignorance. McCain LOST, in case you haven't heard. But to put it in a way you might better be able to relate to, you're Perry Caravello, doing the commentary on the DVD of Windy City Heat, and you're still not up to speed on what the film is really about, and your role in it.


Quote:

Quote:
You know, the same way you argue audio.


Rationally? So sorry. I left the subjectivist/objectivist lunitic fringe fued a long time ago. sorry i don't fit your molds or make the same tired ignorant arguments.

(insert rollingeyes emoticon) I wrote this FAQ for my site several years before you joined this forum. To help asses your level of self-delusion, see if you can recognize yourself in any of these points. If you can't recognize yourself in any of them (and given how you like to contradict everything including yourself, I wouldn't be surprised if you said that), then your level of self-delusion can be pretty accurately determined by that alone:

from "The Audio Skeptic's FAQ":

Q. "I don't need to try such products to know they don't work. "

(Remember you talking about freezing couch pillows and arguing "Where does the madness end"?? Remember you dismissing out of hand nearly all of Machina Dynamica's audio products?)

Q. "I choose to believe in "real" audio ideas, products that are proven to work based on widely accepted theory. I don't have time for 'faffle' ".

(Remember you saying something just like that YESTERDAY?)

Q. "I put pineapples down my trousers to improve the sound! It's just as effective as the tweaks you advocate! Try it! If you don't, you're not being open minded, hypocrite!"

A. This is of course another form of non-thinking knee-jerk reaction, using the old reverse psychology routine. Which is about as worn-down as Abbot & Costello's "Who's On First?" comedy routine.

(True, you didn't talk about putting pineapples down your trousers in your mockery of established tweaks.... But remember talking about freezing ears of corn? Dead animals?)

Q. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute".

(Remember you telling me "You still think Machina Dynamica is legit"?)

Q. "EVERYTHING can be measured! If it can't be measured, guess what? It doesn't exist!"

(Remember you actually saying that about measurements of sound, a little while ago, and one of us took issue with you on it?)

Q. "The solution is simple. Double-blind test everything in sight, that will tell you if its real or not. After all, you shouldn't need to see fancy labels to tell you which sounds better".

(Isn't this what you are saying May and everyone should do, when you say such observations must have scientific validation before they are to be taken seriously?)

Q. I try to keep an open mind. Just not so open that my brains fall out.

Seems to be you talking, again.

Q. This whole thing is a joke, right? I can't believe that you even believe what you are advocating here!

This is -definitely- you talking about the "satire" that Machina Dynamica is, recently.

.......and that's pretty much every argument raised in my FAQ. If there were more, then there'd be more that would fit you. So the next time you think you "don't fit the mold" of the lunatic fringe objectivist, you think you're any different, read my FAQ again. It's free, so read it as many times as it takes to help you from falling into delusional behaviour. Maybe then you will finally realize that your idea of advanced audio concepts being negated by "checking for bias effects first" is as worn as an old welcome mat, and hardly anything original or new, or not considered before by everyone who believes there are more things to consider in audio than just the loudspeaker.


Quote:
Maybe I do it too well.!

Or... instead of believing you do parody "too well", maybe you are intensely deluded. You should really not attempt parody or mockery if you're going to say something to May so blindingly ignorant as to accuse her of being "disrespectful towards those who actually believe that freezing photos will improve the sound of their system", when it is her company that discovered and shared the process in the first place. That makes your attempts at parody and mockery self-parody and self-mockery. Now go out and have a fun day!

"And you may ask yourself
Am I right? ...am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
My god!...what have I done? "

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:
religious zealots have a hard time with parody when they are the butt of the joke. They have a hard time recognizing it and a problem appreciating it. My mockery is not for the benefit of the lunitic fringe. It is for the benefit of those tired of the same old tired crap that both sides re-live on a daily basis like Groundhog day.

I guess if there's a joke to be had here, it's in you thinking that your so-called "mockery" is anything particularly funny, clever or original. Especially while you are busy trying to explain it (though I admit, that part is kind of funny). Or you thinking you have a keener sense of humour and are more enlightened or intelligent than your subject. When in truth, you are simply fooling yourself with false beliefs, in the throes of attempting to protect yourself from such. You may think you're above that and on the right side of scientific doctrine, but you're not, because self-delusion happens a lot easier than you think. In ways you haven't been able to pontificate yet. You may think you are different from the religious zealots with your out of hand dismissal of empirical evidence and advanced audio ideas, not part of the "lunatic fringe objectivists".... but about the only difference I can see between you and the rest of the dismissive dogmatists is that you own a CD with a blue ring around it. I guess you're also not aware that your "I have taken the stand that subjectivism in audio does not have to be accompanied by irrationality and ignorance and an ego driven belief of personal infalability" is the stand that every lunatic fringe objectivist takes. Even Krueger calls himself a "subjectivist", and arguably, there's isn't a soul on this planet who doesn't have a greater "ego-driven belief of personal infalability" than him.

You may think that you're not putting out the same old tired crap on a daily basis a la "Groundhog Day" as the other LFO's do. But your tired old arguments in response to high end audio products and practices, are the same ones I have been witnessing for two decades. Or, and I really love this, not realizing the irony of how these oh-so-clever statements about others "not getting it" really apply to -you-. e.g. Me not getting the true nature of MD's site and or products. Or how its "others" that have a hard time recognizing parody and humour, when you don't get the humour of how your humour is really based on your own ignorance of audio. In this way, you're like the motorbikers who laughed along with John McCain at a rally last year at Obama's "silly idea" of telling them that keeping their tires inflated is a way to lower their gas costs.... Imagine Big John McCain and a rowdy group of tough bikers all laughing at the very idea that such a small and seemingly irrelevant practice could actually affect their gas savings. As Obama himself put it when he was showed the tape, they were essentially rejoicing in their own ignorance. McCain LOST, in case you haven't heard. But to put it in a way you might better be able to relate to, you're Perry Caravello, doing the commentary on the DVD of Windy City Heat, and you're still not up to speed on what the film is really about, and your role in it.


Quote:

Quote:
You know, the same way you argue audio.


Rationally? So sorry. I left the subjectivist/objectivist lunitic fringe fued a long time ago. sorry i don't fit your molds or make the same tired ignorant arguments.

(insert rollingeyes emoticon) I wrote this FAQ for my site several years before you joined this forum. To help asses your level of self-delusion, see if you can recognize yourself in any of these points. If you can't recognize yourself in any of them (and given how you like to contradict everything including yourself, I wouldn't be surprised if you said that), then your level of self-delusion can be pretty accurately determined by that alone:

from "The Audio Skeptic's FAQ":

Q. "I don't need to try such products to know they don't work. "

(Remember you talking about freezing couch pillows and arguing "Where does the madness end"?? Remember you dismissing out of hand nearly all of Machina Dynamica's audio products?)

Q. "I choose to believe in "real" audio ideas, products that are proven to work based on widely accepted theory. I don't have time for 'faffle' ".

(Remember you saying something just like that YESTERDAY?)

Q. "I put pineapples down my trousers to improve the sound! It's just as effective as the tweaks you advocate! Try it! If you don't, you're not being open minded, hypocrite!"

A. This is of course another form of non-thinking knee-jerk reaction, using the old reverse psychology routine. Which is about as worn-down as Abbot & Costello's "Who's On First?" comedy routine.

(True, you didn't talk about putting pineapples down your trousers in your mockery of established tweaks.... But remember talking about freezing ears of corn? Dead animals?)

Q. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute".

(Remember you telling me "You still think Machina Dynamica is legit"?)

Q. "EVERYTHING can be measured! If it can't be measured, guess what? It doesn't exist!"

(Remember you actually saying that about measurements of sound, a little while ago, and one of us took issue with you on it?)

Q. "The solution is simple. Double-blind test everything in sight, that will tell you if its real or not. After all, you shouldn't need to see fancy labels to tell you which sounds better".

(Isn't this what you are saying May and everyone should do, when you say such observations must have scientific validation before they are to be taken seriously?)

Q. I try to keep an open mind. Just not so open that my brains fall out.

Seems to be you talking, again.

Q. This whole thing is a joke, right? I can't believe that you even believe what you are advocating here!

This is -definitely- you talking about the "satire" that Machina Dynamica is, recently.

.......and that's pretty much every argument raised in my FAQ. If there were more, then there'd be more that would fit you. So the next time you think you "don't fit the mold" of the lunatic fringe objectivist, you think you're any different, read my FAQ again. It's free, so read it as many times as it takes to help you from falling into delusional behaviour. Maybe then you will finally realize that your idea of advanced audio concepts being negated by "checking for bias effects first" is as worn as an old welcome mat, and hardly anything original or new, or not considered before by everyone who believes there are more things to consider in audio than just the loudspeaker.


Quote:
Maybe I do it too well.!

Or... instead of believing you do parody "too well", maybe you are intensely deluded. You should really not attempt parody or mockery if you're going to say something to May so blindingly ignorant as to accuse her of being "disrespectful towards those who actually believe that freezing photos will improve the sound of their system", when it is her company that discovered and shared the process in the first place. That makes your attempts at parody and mockery self-parody and self-mockery. Now go out and have a fun day!

"And you may ask yourself
Am I right? ...am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
My god!...what have I done? "

Your obsession with me is bordering on pathalogical. How much time and effort did you waste on that rant? Looks like you are really passionate about it. You haven't built any alters in my honor in your basement have you? do you rmemebr my joke about the froggy? You never got that joke did you?

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
Your obsession with me is bordering on pathalogical.

What can I say, you're a sexy beast of a man, Scotty. But since this is my only post to anyone in 2 days and you've cooked up a dizzying skeptic's smorgasbord of at least 36 posts in that same space of time, I think you and I have two very different ideas of what "bordering on the pathological" means exactly. I note that your mentor "j_j" would call me a "stalker" every time I or anyone else he couldn't deal with effectively responded to him. I'm not sure what to make of that, other than the idea that egocentrism seems to be a by-product of being an irrational skeptic. Yet another good reason to not make a religion out of science, as you people are wont to do.


Quote:
How much time and effort did you waste on that rant?

None, since it's not at all a "rant". Believe me, when I rant, you'll notice the difference. But if you mean "writing time", I'd say it took me approximately 65 times less than the combined amount of time you took in your entire life, to research all of the audio products and concepts you have been eagerly dismissing since you got here.


Quote:
Looks like you are really passionate about it.

Thanks. I'm generally passionate in all my views. The difference is, with me, they actually mean something. I don't know if you realize this but with some folks, audio is about more than just "debating audio".


Quote:
You haven't built any alters in my honor in your basement have you?

What an odd question. No, I haven't, why? Are you starting to get concerned that the one you made for j_j in your basement isn't large enough?


Quote:
do you rmemebr my joke about the froggy? You never got that joke did you?

No, I just never read it. Sorry. You've never gotten anything that I have written, have you? I guess that would explain why you can only respond with sophomoric ad hominem or froggy jokes. That are so lame, you apparently have to explain those to people as well.

Xenophanes
Xenophanes's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 7 2005 - 2:48pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work. Only they do. Things like cell phones, HDTV's, automobiles, long distance communications ...

JJ, guys like you often forget many of the things they know and think of as very very basic that are not common knowledge. I have tried the tact of explaining to biblical literalists how we know the universe is much older than 6K and change by things as simple as starlight( I know the whole evolution thing is very sensitive "I didn't evolve from no munky!") I explain how we use paralax to triangulate the distance from the earth to the nearest stars as the earth travels around the sun. I explain how we have determined the material content of stars by the energy level of the spectrum of their radiation. I explain how we use these two bits of info to deduct the distance of other stars. I then explain how we know the speed of light is a constant. I then try to show how that and the known distance of stars shows the universe is far far older than they think. I usually then get the question "what is paralax?"

I agree it's not a very effective tack to take against creationists, taken alone. I also take them on on the actual meaning of the relevant biblical texts, using some of the best modern biblical scholarship. How did the ancient Hebrews picture the universe? How many creation stories are there in the Bible? (5 main ones) How many other creation texts are there in the Bible? (dozens) What is the cultural and political context of each one?

Scott Wheeler
Scott Wheeler's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 3 2005 - 7:47pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You know, Scott, it's sometimes easier to point out that if people were right about various of these theories, many things we have would not work. Only they do. Things like cell phones, HDTV's, automobiles, long distance communications ...

JJ, guys like you often forget many of the things they know and think of as very very basic that are not common knowledge. I have tried the tact of explaining to biblical literalists how we know the universe is much older than 6K and change by things as simple as starlight( I know the whole evolution thing is very sensitive "I didn't evolve from no munky!") I explain how we use paralax to triangulate the distance from the earth to the nearest stars as the earth travels around the sun. I explain how we have determined the material content of stars by the energy level of the spectrum of their radiation. I explain how we use these two bits of info to deduct the distance of other stars. I then explain how we know the speed of light is a constant. I then try to show how that and the known distance of stars shows the universe is far far older than they think. I usually then get the question "what is paralax?"

I agree it's not a very effective tack to take against creationists, taken alone. I also take them on on the actual meaning of the relevant biblical texts, using some of the best modern biblical scholarship. How did the ancient Hebrews picture the universe? How many creation stories are there in the Bible? (5 main ones) How many other creation texts are there in the Bible? (dozens) What is the cultural and political context of each one?

I often wonder how anyone can look at the grand canyon and believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old. at the same time I now wonder how anyone can look at the machina dynamica website and think that it is anything but s spoof.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists


Quote:
I also take them on on the actual meaning of the relevant biblical texts, using some of the best modern biblical scholarship.

May, Frog, sas, etc., when was the last time you felt you needed to "take on" a creationist?

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 41 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

"I often wonder how anyone can look at the grand canyon and believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old. At the same time I now wonder how anyone can look at the machina dynamica website and think that it is anything but a spoof."

Thanks, we appreciate the feedback and will make the necessary changes.

Oh, wait a minute - is this Scott again? False alarm.

michiganjfrog
michiganjfrog's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 9 2007 - 11:36pm
Re: Michael Lavorgna on subjectivists vs objectivists

Speaking for myself, I did used to do this (argue against religion with Xtians), for amusement, and to help me understand their mindset. Usually on political discussion forums (and I was a member of Richard Dawkin's forum). Last time that I can recall was maybe a couple of years ago. I don't recall if the debates were about creationism per se (although I do remember watching some hilarious debates on this subject on YouTube with the former "Growing Pains" actor whosnameiforget), but they always centered around religious (usually Christian) beliefs. (Even on audio forums, I've never made a secret of the fact that I'm an atheist. And there's a period after that, because I'm not an "agnostic atheist". I'm an atheist, with a period right after. And I'm not a "converted" atheist after attending Jesus school for 12 years and having an atheistic epiphany, nor do I have any atheists in my family. Nor did I become an atheist listening to heavy metal music. I was simply never religious, so never not an atheist).

Debating these pseudoscientific zealots on audio forums really feels like the same experience for me as it does debating Xtian zealots on other discussion forums; it's just a different religion they are arguing about. Besides unwittingly turning the science, research and hobby of audio into a religion with their rather unscientific, unobjective and thoroughly biased (sometimes agenda-driven) approach to audio, I always found it funny to learn that some of these self-professed "objectivists" or "armchair scientists" also have other religious beliefs on their mantle, ie. Christianity. And that because they will never allow themselves to become aware of their religious approach to science, they see no conflict with that. That's when the "debates" really get interesting.

Pages

  • X