Quote:
The existence of a deity can neither be disproven nor proven and either stance requires going "beyond" reason.

I am not sure that is fair. While it cannot be proved either way...a deity, after all, seems like a rather improbable thing even if its existence cannot be completely ruled out. I mean one might argue that there is a small teapot orbiting the sun somewhere far out at the edge of the solar system, further than we can detect with any instruments. However, a person might say that this orbiting teapot idea is rather unlikley and might be considered a "reasonable" person for not believing in it (the person has not gone "beyond reason" in this example).

The fact you can't prove or disprove "something" does not make that "something" equally probable to exist or not exist. Evidence, reproducable observations, measurements are the kind of things used to "weight" the probabilties. For example, stepping in front of a high speed car is likely to get you killed or badly injured...again this can't be proved with absolute certainty because there is no guarentee that the world, as we know it, will remain consistent from one moment to the next (we might all live in a fake "Matrix" world for example, and not know it)....but most people accept that it is so highly probable that they are careful not to step in front of a high speed vehicle.

If you like that Buzzard/Monkey Nat Cole song, I highly recommend Robbie Williams "Swing while you're Winning" CD....simply an excellent recording quality.

It's true Clifton, I am a classical guitarist so I neither need to spell nor count past 12:-)
BTW, Camus was an agnostic, not an atheist. He so states in the Myth of Sisyphus.
And I would agreee that to make music is a pursuit of the non material or the abstract which could satisfy the religious impulse. As a professional musician it also satisfies my pocketbook :-)
When it comes to money I could be acussed of being a theist.

Quote:
Well, while I stand by my stance that atheism is just that: a-theism (Latin purist) - or the absence of faith, you guys can join my club as agnostics. I think y'all are fine company.

Maybe I could get Clifton to go to Dallas with me!

I'm a happy atheist, actually.

So, my quote will use my preferred philosopher:

"I know this glass is already broken, so I enjoy it incredibly."

That's the way I look at my mortality.

I also like "The Situation is hopeless, but not serious."

Lastly, my other favorite philosopher, George Santayana: "Having been born is poor augury for immortality."

Put those three together and you're close to my point of view.

Here's to you guys!

OK, I think we are talking semantics here. Granted, the latin meaning of a-theism is without faith. That would also be my definition of agnosticism.
Don't they convey the same thing in Latin?

However, I thought the modern english meaning of atheism is one who denies the existence of a god, which is different from being without faith.
Camus uses the term a-gnostic in this sense.
So it seems we agree in concept but we were using different words.
This is very budhist,no?
Or at least it is reason to consume ample quantities of wine and chat up good looking women.

Revrb,
Camus adresses this as well.
You are comparing the empirical to the metaphysical and IMO this is a false analogy.
We can observe the consequences of a person being hit by a car and draw a logical conclusion that there is a high probability that the result is injury or death. We can observe the sunrise daily and logically postulate that it will rise again. When there is consistent empirical data to support a hypothesis it is not a matter of metaphysical faith.

Camus explains this much better than I am able to do. He took a book to do it. Try giving it a read if you haven't already, it is short and very clearly written ( unlike Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" which I feel is more aptly titled"Bullsh#t and More Bullsh#t"

Tom

Lordy, it gets harder and harder to stay up this late...

I think this one's an original:

"I'm not really a "happy" drunk, it's just that being drunk reminds me of happy I really am."

That's my existential creed.

Love y'all.

Reverb
I was happily drifting through these posts of existential thought, when your reply brought me back to earth.

In that case, I agree with your assertions! The example that you were illustrating earlier came to mind. If the process of physically plugging in the mains cable resulted in a surge capacitor charging current that was above the capacitors ripple current rating then after many cycles it would indeed, eventually fail.
My point here being that it would eventually fail whether or not you opted to use the same cable, or the super clear audio XL version.

If I remember this thread had something to do with HiFi cons? Perhaps a liberal sprinkling of metaphysics is needed about here. It might start the process of reintroducing a sense of reality? On second thoughts, mine

I also like Tom Wait's philosophical creed:
" I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

Quote:
I also like Tom Wait's philosophical creed:
" I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

That's a classic.

OK, what to quote when one has a dead cat in his mouth, a small terrier inside his skull struggling to get out, and the tummy of a lifelong sailor trying to get his land legs...

I used this one once before, but I like it:

If the pain, malaise, and misery were to precede the euphoria, drunkenness would become the eighth sacrament.

(Don't know when I first heard that, but I think it was Father Tony one Sunday morning during my childhood altar boy days.)

It seems apropos today.

Homer's motto is good too:

"Here's to alcohol: the cause of, and solution to all of life's problems."

So, to get back to the existential portion of the thread:

"What is man, when you come to think upon him, but a minutely set, ingenious machine for turning, with infinite artfulness, the red wine of Shiraz into urine?

Isak Dinesen 1885-1962: Seven Gothic Tales (1934)

Lastly, the original Buddha admonished that "drinking involves thirty-six evils"...so, if you'll excuse me, I'm only halfway home.

Quote:
You are comparing the empirical to the metaphysical and IMO this is a false analogy.

Huh...you lost me. I don't care much for what Camus invented - I mean who says that the metaphysical world gets special treatment and can't be compared to anything in the physical world....sounds like a cop out to me. The metaphysical is just something imagined like a "teapot at the outer extremities of our solar system"...it may be imagined, but some kind of spiritual other world has an extremely low probability of existence compared to physical things like stepping in front of a high speed car and getting hurt.

As some have already mentioned there is a Randi prize of $1 MILLION dollars to anyone who can reliably demonstrate some kind of metaphysical abilities. It is most probable that these metaphysical constructions are simply a behavioural thing...if you ever got mad at your computer and slammed angrily at the keyboard and swore at it then you will have observed the funny human trait of imputing greater complexity where it is unlikely to exist (personification).

Buddha, loved that last post.

Reverb, I'm not sure if we disagree.
But I don't think the existence of a deity can be empirically demonstrated directly or indirectly so isn't it , by definition, an act of faith?

Anyway , If you buy the wine I'll agree with you as long as I don't have to go to church:-)
Off to the Cafe tonight to meet some hot Russian babes , now , that's faith!

Quote:
But I don't think the existence of a deity can be empirically demonstrated directly or indirectly so isn't it , by definition, an act of faith?

Yes we agree...but I don't accept that an "act of faith" deserves exceptional treatment and doesn't require any demonstration as a probable representation of our world.... I find it unacceptable that any old mumbo jumbo can be made up and then defended by "oh this is my belief....you can't question this.....beliefs are off limits to any rational discussion"...I mean why shouldn't religious convictions be openly questioned just like anything else...

Quote:

Quote:
But I don't think the existence of a deity can be empirically demonstrated directly or indirectly so isn't it , by definition, an act of faith?

Yes we agree...but I don't accept that an "act of faith" deserves exceptional treatment and doesn't require any demonstration as a probable representation of our world.... I find it unacceptable that any old mumbo jumbo can be made up and then defended by "oh this is my belief....you can't question this.....beliefs are off limits to any rational discussion"...I mean why shouldn't religious convictions be openly questioned just like anything else...

I agree that acts of faith shouldn't get exceptional treatment. But they are irrational by definition, aren't they? As such I ignore them and find them uninteresting rather than give them a special status.
A god cabernet, A Bach fugue or a smart and attractive woman are all more interesting to me than any "deity" :-)

Camus was an atheist early on. His position gradually changed, and The Myth of Sisyphus was a major inflection point. This change of stance infuriated Sartre (and other, less famous existentialists) and led to a life-long quarrel between him and Camus, who kept drifting further and further away from the rigid squawkings about "authenticity" that Sartre kept yammering up. Ironic, that Sartre's position should become more rigid, as Camus grew more fluid. "Music is immortal, the fitful tracing of a portal..." and etc. -- Wallace Stevens' "necessary angel" is an appealing concept in this wandering debate.

While Santayana was at Oxford, he and Lionel Johnson (one of the Poets Maudit of the late-19th Century who were particularly vexed by these arguments) were getting loaded in Johnson's rooms. They stared out at the horizon near sunset. "See that line?", said Johnson, pointing at the very clear delineation between sky and land. "Yes," said Santana. "Everything above it is right, and everything below it is wrong," Johnson, ever the Classicist, insisted. Santana's reply?" "Are we going to need more gin, or do you have some hidden somewhere?" There is no philosophical argument that cannot be drowned in gin.

Interesting that this thread has lapsed into a philosophical/religious meander. The very foundation of religion is belief, as many have noted. Belief in Sooper-Dooper cable is no different to belief in any deity. Belief overcomes evidence, fact and proof. "I can hear the difference!" and "I've seen the only true god!" are essentially the same statement, from different belief structures. Science will not sway the believer, nor will masses of facts and figures. Don't believe those silly test instruments, listen! Use your forty year old ears!
It's a moot point but I have been involved in the engineering area of commercial radio broadcasting for over twenty years. Which of course means I know NOTHING about audio compared to an "audiophile".
I was once an enthusiast and I'll tell you what killed my enthusiasm and why I'm still using the NAD amplifier I bought when I was 19. I used to waft into the HiFi shop and browse when I didn't have enough money to actually buy anything. I'd bought the NAD 2010 amp, a pair of AR15 speakers, a Dunlop System Deck (cake tin)with a Linn Basic arm and to add a period touch, a Nakamichi cassette deck.
This was in about 1982 I think. Because I was a tech at the commercial radio station, i was always warmly recieved. Anyway, one day as I browsed i spied a really nice set of RCA interconnects. "MMMM" I thought, "they're purdy". I plucked them off the display and took them to the counter. "These are nice, how much?" i had flicked my eyes across the price tag, looked like $25 to me. "$250" said the owner of the shop. I felt faint. "What??!!" I quailed. "Theyre two hundred and fifty dollars" said the guy. "Why?" I responded. "Oh they're special" he responds. "They're just cables!" I exclaim. Then I had to listen to a long winded pitch on the magical properties of the RCA cables. Monster Cable had already arrived and I had been blessed with some thick speaker cable when I bought my system. I was sceptical about the stuff but accepted the 15M that was thrown in with my gear. But this! These were SIGNAL cables, practically no volts and no amps. In a nutshell I was disgusted. I walked out of that shop and never went back.
The only HiFi component I bought after that was a NAD CD player and that was many years later. My interest in HiFi was over. All this BS about cable, then spikes, then anti gravity then, and THEN Mains cables. Mains cables, for gods sake. The cable that takes that filthy looking 50/60 Hz AC into the PSU of your precious amplifier. Here's the bad news, the PSU conditions the power, it takes a filthy, switch pulse ridden, AC waveform and makes it into DC for the amplifier circuits. The mains cable can do NOTHING to influence the amp. If it can, then the PSU design is all wrong. But the believers won't get it, EVER, because they shelled out money for the product.
The people who sell this stuff are cheats but they are taking advantage of a purposeful gullibility in the consumer/believer.

My good friend Tim who works in professional audio did a nice little experiment on his "audiophile" friend who was a lodger in his house. this guy lived like a pauper to feed his habit. He was on to the latest tweaks before they even went cold on the shelf. Anyway he came home with some Monster Super Magic speaker cable and proceeded to hook up his system with the stuff. The next few hours were heaven for him. Agog at all the "new" things he could hear in the music. Tim stood back and shook his head.
Inside Tims sceptic head, an evil plan formed. When said lodger was well out of the house, Tim went to enormous trouble to get some ordinary twin core stranded copper wire and hook up the speakers with it. Concealing it under the carpet he ran out both channels but arranged things to look like the Heap Big Ultra Magic cable was still pumping those amps of music power through. Anyway, after a week Tim says to Mr Audiophile "so, are you happy with the cables?" "Oh yes!!" says Mr A, and he gushes about the musical clarity the depth, the focus, the astonishing transformation, etc etc. "Wow!" cries Tim, "that's amazing".... "let me show you something" Tim revealed his hack and Mr A was absolutely disgusted,pissed off and angry. He wouldn't talk to Tim for a week. It was like giving a devout Christian Gods phone number.
I found this forum after being sucked into Stereophile. I was following the trail of the Caliburn/Cobra turntable. It brought me back into the world of the audiophile with a sharp smack! Wow! a sublimely over-engineered device that spins a vinyl (people still use that?) disc. The quackery lives on! I expected no less.

"Belief in Sooper-Dooper cable is no different to (sic) belief in any deity." Oh, I don't know, Fresh Clip. Even the most avid cable-believers don't pray to their cables for special favors in all areas of life.

Your meandering anecdotes about the humbuggery of high end audio are open to interpretation. Monster "Super Magic" (or was it their "Heap Big Ultra Magic Cable"? -- the precise model is important...) wire is hardly an industry standard. It sounds suspiciously like you made this up.

Do you ever attend live musical events? What standards does a "tech at a commercial radio station" use for comparing different audio gear? It doesn't sound like you listen very well.

Your friend, Tim, must really be in the know if he "works in professional audio." I would like to introduce you both to a fellow named DUP, who just adores the sound of "professional audio."

I'm sorry you were "sucked into Stereophile." Could you, by the way, explain exactly how that works? I am truly sorry you can't afford better gear (1982 is a long time ago...), but maybe you wouldn't be able to hear any improvements if you could.

Quote:
Tim revealed his hack and Mr A was absolutely disgusted, pissed off and angry. He wouldn't talk to Tim for a week.

ROFL. That's even better than a blind test because all the "pressure" of having to decide which is better or different is removed. And it's great that Tim let a week go by because believers often say it takes time for your ears/brain to acclimate and learn to appreciate the subtle improvement.

It's also not surprising that Tim's friend was po'd. Of course he was angry that his belief system was shot full of holes. And this is the difference between believers and scientifically minded folks. Had Tim done that to me I'd have thanked him for giving me an education and showing me the flaws in my thinking. This is exactly why the scientific method is so valuable. You'll get a lot farther looking for the truth, rather than hoping for affirmation of pre-existing beliefs.

--Ethan

Why would one have to attend live events in order to hear a difference?

Do you believe this story, Ethan? Do you believe an audiophile who had reduced himself to being a pauper, by trying all available high-end exotica, wouldn't spot the different terminations?

Are you saying, Ethan, that different speaker cables do not change the sound? ROTFL (what ever that means, in web gibberish).

Again, pray tell, how does one DBT your miracle product? Does the listener sit blindfolded while you hang 8 or more frames around the room, play ten seconds of music, then remove the frames from the room? Then repeat the process again, and again? Do you play test tones? Ten seconds of real music? 37 celli? Please tell us how your foolproof methodology, the reveal-all-humbuggery-DBT, applies to your special little niche, to treating a room with at least 30 minutes worth of hanging panels, taking them down, re-hanging them, etc., etc., until the requirements of the test are satisfied.

Ya know, after all the good fellowship and faith we've been sharing here, we forgot one important ingredient: God Money.

I'm sure 100% of us know audiophiles that have a need to spend a certain amount before they feel satisfied with their Hi Fi gear.

The world is full of "how do I spend 6,000 bucks on a preamp?" questions, with correct answers that include 1,500 dollar items, yet many audiophiles shop right to a given budget point, regardless of his audio situation.

We all know guys who blindly spend at price points, but none of "us" here do that.

Remember that apocryphal story that got printed in one of the Hi FI magazines about the speaker maker who couldn't sell a single pair of his new speakers at 6 kilodollars per pair, but when he upped the price to 15 grand, he couldn't make them fast enough to keep up with demand?

I'm not so sure I believe the story, but I find his tale "believable" when applied to audiophiles.

In a way, us audiophiles are like chicks - a cubic zirc may look (sound) just as good as a diamond, but once the diamond costs much more, we feel it is "better" to own the diamond.

Now, I know that would never apply to any of us here, but it is out there.

So, we end up with a marketplace where certain audiophiles are "buying" happiness. If they enjoy their systems more because they spent 15 large for a pair of interconnects, then so be it. The only bummer is that since this disorder is so common, they can drive the cost of "normal quality" gear upward for everybody else.

Audiophile Nervosa is real, but it is only allowed to be diagnosed in the "second person" grammatical context.

Just like a patient with Munchausen Syndrome, Audiophile Nervosa can never be diagnosed by the person who has the disease.

Buy your way to Heaven, that comes to one pound seven...

Clifton,

> how does one DBT your miracle product? Does the listener sit blindfolded while you hang 8 or more frames around the room, play ten seconds of music, then remove the frames from the room? <

I wish that were possible! But it's not necessary. The improvement from quality acoustic treatment such as RealTraps sells is so obvious that nobody could miss it. So there's no need for blind testing because nobody could dispute the improvement.

But a side by side comparison is possible and we've done exactly that. Since so many people don't understand the importance of room acoustics, or have even heard a properly treated room, RealTraps got together with RPG and Rives Audio at last year's Home Entertainment Show. Lookie here:

www.realtraps.com

See the second News item down on the left pane.

--Ethan

Buddha,

> a cubic zirc may look (sound) just as good as a diamond, but once the diamond costs much more, we feel it is "better" to own the diamond. <

Indeed. And even a jeweler can't always tell the difference. This is why audiophiles sometimes refer to tweak accessories like cable elevators as "audio jewelry." Of course, jewelry has no practical or intrinsic value at all. At least audio equipment, even grossly overpriced stuff, is "useful" in the same way as any other entertainment such as tickets to a sporting event.

> If they enjoy their systems more because they spent 15 large for a pair of interconnects, then so be it. <

I agree, and I have no problem with people spending their money on this stuff. However, what I do object to is when someone who's not rich truly wants good value, but is bamboozled into buying expensive speaker cables or whatever instead of better speakers or something else that really would improve the sound.

--Ethan

Great post. I have been following from afar as I do not own gear that come close to the cost of some of your cables.

I would like to try to go around this issue in a different way. If I had any of your systems shipped to my home it would sound the same...I do not think electrons know the difference between CA and GA, accept that ours are a little slower (Jeff Foxworthy...add a rim shot), but once the speakers start activating the air against MY walls things starting behaving differently...and sound differently.

So now the question becomes when starting from scratch what might be considered the optimum size of the room, more square, rectangular, trapezoidal, or some combination? Ceilings vaulted or just sloped? Do I add heavy drapes that can be pulled and adjusted on opposite walls? How about to carpet or not to carpet and use some harder flooring?

We have all spent considerable money over the years on gear and do our best to make it "work" where and how we live. We do compromise on this point to a greater or lesser degree. Many like me have just given up this issue, but it does adversely affect how I hear my system.

To my own fault I would not spend thousands on room treatments for their sake alone when there is more gear to buy at every turn. So the question being asked is what is the perfect room? Did anyone build their home and a room specifically for their audio system and enjoyment?

I hope this is not too far off topic, as I have heard differences in cable from speaker to interconnect and, yes even digital cables. I was a non beliver until I started my journey into cableville. I do not discount what others hear. I did not say "claim" to hear, either.

Quote:
Clifton,

> how does one DBT your miracle product? Does the listener sit blindfolded while you hang 8 or more frames around the room, play ten seconds of music, then remove the frames from the room? <

I wish that were possible! But it's not necessary. The improvement from quality acoustic treatment such as RealTraps sells is so obvious that nobody could miss it. So there's no need for blind testing because nobody could dispute the improvement.

But a side by side comparison is possible and we've done exactly that. Since so many people don't understand the importance of room acoustics, or have even heard a properly treated room, RealTraps got together with RPG and Rives Audio at last year's Home Entertainment Show. Lookie here:

www.realtraps.com

See the second News item down on the left pane.

--Ethan

Those rooms, by the way, provided one of the absolute highlights of the show.

Beautiful and creative idea, well executed.

No fear of blind listening tests for those guys.

I had a friend lead me into one room or the other with my eyes closed - a poor man's "blind" test...and the differences were LARGE.

It was really a fantastic concept - and much appreciated.

I'm sure Clifton must have wondered through!

Ahh, we have a true believer! Clifton, all that I tell you is true. I have worked in commercial radio for 24 years and I am currently Chief Engineer of a station on the eastern seaboard in Australia. I could, if I chose, go and see the manufacturing hub of the worlds most expensive vinyl disc spinner, it's minutes away.
The great Tim is a contemporary of mine and runs a thriving business in sound reinforcement. In fact I gave him an unused Rega RB200 that I had sculling around last year. He runs a couple of high end amplifiers off batteries at home for his listening pleasure. Not sure what they are though. His system lacks a $5000 dollar mains cord however as he uses an automotive charger to top up his batteries.
As a clarification to my anecdote, Mr A didn't drive himself to poverty to afford all the latest knick knacks, he just spent an inordinate amount of money on them and had little left for anything else. Y'know, like a drug addict.
I'm unsurprised to find that my profession carries little weight with believers. Now if I was selling "sonic pebbles" or something I'd be welcomed as a brother!

When I said I'd been "sucked in" to the Stereophile site, I meant that I was just fascinated to see what a 99,000 dollar turntable looked like. Because precision electro-mechanics fascinates me I had to see how it was made too. The descriptions by the reviewer were excellent by the way. I also wanted to see what reaction it was getting so I logged on to the forums and this thread grabbed my interest. Here I am.
I wouldn't presume to tell anybody how to spend their hard earned money and buying worthless HiFi knick knacks is a great way to spend, in fact if I could find out where Clifton lived I could open a Hi Fi shop there and live large I reckon
I spoke to Tim yesterday and I said, tonuge in cheek, how much I'd like a turntable that sucked the record onto the platter like the Caliburn and he said "Yeah it'd suck all the money out of your wallet too!"
The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that the "tweaks" can cause such amazing and obvious improvements. Surely if you've shelled out thousands for this high end gear, it should be excellent to begin with. Very little improvement should be possible if the equipment is as good as the price tag suggests.

For $100,000 you can get a lot of mechanical excellence in an Audi RS4 for much less than $100,000. It even has electronics, and all kinds of stuff. No friggin TT is worth $100,000. Actually neither is a car, but there sure is a lot more high end design in the car than a motor and a platter. And it functions in adverse conditions of cold, hot wet and dry. AND it has a better paint job.

Quote:
For $100,000 you can get a lot of mechanical excellence in an Audi RS4 for much less than $100,000. It even has electronics, and all kinds of stuff. No friggin TT is worth $100,000. Actually neither is a car, but there sure is a lot more high end design in the car than a motor and a platter. And it functions in adverse conditions of cold, hot wet and dry. AND it has a better paint job.

LOL!

Says the man with 15,000 dollar PA loudspeakers and 10K in electronics.

Says the man with 3 JMW Memorial tonearms and a VPI turntable.

In any place other than an audio forum, you'd be the crazy mother-fo with the toys that aren't worth the price.

However, I have a hunch that talking about relative value with you would be like trying to teach a cow to build a rocket ship - a waste of both our time.

Let me get this straight. My perception of obvious differences among various wires (digital interconnects included) is invalid unless verified by DBT situations that you can control in as little as ten minutes of listening. Further, in the name of the science of "comb filtering," it is invalid because you can find no measurements to account for the differences I can clearly hear, when I play music over much longer periods of time.

Yet, your perceptions of obvious differences among room treatments (universally obvious, according to your claims, regardless of the room) needn't be subjected to the test-situation rigor you demand of others. It just "is," with no necessity for verification by the standard you demand from others. You can state, with no experience with, say, my Argent room lenses, that such devices made by other manufactureres are inferior to Winer's scientifically valid panels.

For proof, all I need to do is go to your website (how could there be any bias there?), or listen to the second hand narrative of Kal or Buddha. I suggest you immediately get an order from Buddha -- strike while the iron is hot, eh?

And you claim scientific validity. Ethan, you are some piece of work.

Buddha, I hate to be a pedant, but you say I probably "wondered through" the miraculously transformed Winer room. Did you mean "wondered about," or "wandered through"? Usually, diction, syntax, and spelling errors do impede communication. The good Reverend, for instance, and perhaps his entire Parish (since he hasn't a name, I decided to give him "proper" status), wants to know if listening to live musical events "makes a difference." A difference between what and what? Or among how many whats? How does one answer such gibberish? Why bother?

So "sucked in" simply means "fascinated." Okay. I was worried that you may have actually wasted some long green on a Stereophile recommended product.

You don't have a name, either. Are you, perchance, the Reverend, or one of our other nameless trolls?

You didn't answer my question. How did this "Tim" manage to hide the cable deception at the amplifier and speaker terminal points? No soundaholic who has spent himself to pauper status would ever spend an hour with his system without checking every terminal in every box in the room. Make us up another story, Fresh_Clip, but this time, spend a little effort on it -- introduce a little realism. Give us names, brands, specific time periods. You know, make it convincing.

Quote:
Let me get this straight. My perception of obvious differences among various wires (digital interconnects included) is invalid unless verified by DBT situations that you can control in as little as ten minutes of listening. Further, in the name of the science of "comb filtering," it is invalid because you can find no measurements to account for the differences I can clearly hear, when I play music over much longer periods of time.

Yet, your perceptions of obvious differences among room treatments (universally obvious, according to your claims, regardless of the room) needn't be subjected to the test-situation rigor you demand of others. It just "is," with no necessity for verification by the standard you demand from others. You can state, with no experience with, say, my Argent room lenses, that such devices made by other manufactureres are inferior to Winer's scientifically valid panels.

For proof, all I need to do is go to your website (how could there be any bias there?), or listen to the second hand narrative of Kal or Buddha. I suggest you immediately get an order from Buddha -- strike while the iron is hot, eh?

And you claim scientific validity. Ethan, you are some piece of work.

Buddha, I hate to be a pedant, but you say I probably "wondered through" the miraculously transformed Winer room. Did you mean "wondered about," or "wandered through"? Usually, diction, syntax, and spelling errors do impede communication. The good Reverend, for instance, and perhaps his entire Parish (since he hasn't a name, I decided to give him "proper" status), wants to know if listening to live musical events "makes a difference." A difference between what and what? Or among how many whats? How does one answer such gibberish? Why bother?

Well, Clifton, if my typo was sufficient to confuse the issue for you, then you're worse off than I ever imagined. I think it really must have had a negative impact on you, as you forgot to include some literary quotes that aren't germane to the topic other than to show off what titles gather dust in your library.

I go to the shows to listen. I had supposed the same could be said for you, but I guess you prefer sniping at those who did. If you missed Ethan's credible demo, then it's your own loss.

Perhaps you were too busy proofreading the show brochures to actually take a listen. I know that passtime is making up for an ever increasing part of your presence/schtick. If pretending to be baffled by a typo of mine or the Reverend's is your best shot, then I'm sorry you have nothing better to do!

So, if you didn't hear the demo, then how can you poo poo it?

On the one hand, you like to dismiss other people's written opinions, but you won't take the time to listen to the gear - your skills have now become transcendant, like our good man DUP. All you've accomplished is joining the camp of those you rail against.

You have decided Ethan's product won't work based on your personal reaction to him, and dismiss his product out of hand without listening. Then, when people who have listened mention the effect of the gear, you deny it - yet you expect others to believe your tripe about your cable experiences because they are typed by the hand of God.

Time to get some consistency going, or it's forever off to DUP-land with you!

As to Reverend Chu's "gibberish:"

The good Reverend was merely stating that listening for a difference between cables does not require any specific "bonafides" other than listening for a difference. In your haste to keep promoting your "elite live listener" status, you missed his point completely. Could it have been that you were too busy planning your next "Who I heard from Row 7 at Disney" reply?

Time to stop proofreading and start trying to get the message.

Yeah, but no MAGIC wires that go for absurd prices. Or one driver speakers that go for $5,500. Why don't they test the $100,000 TT against a expensive but not completely nonsensical VPI for only a few thousand. I doubt any golden eared MF would know which one is playing, using the dreaded blind test. Just like I know without ever trying it, he ain't hearing some demagnetized piece of plastic. Let's give MF a pile of LP's and play ones that are not Furuteched and some that are...and domn't tell the bat eared wizzard, I would put money on it, he ain't gonna know which are wich. And yeah, I ain't tried it, I ain't heard no Furutech, but rational thought based on previous knowledge, and common snese says, no way dude. I never tasted dog pee, or dog crap, yet I KNOW it don't taste good, nor is is worth tasting. Same for demagnetizing PLASTIC. suplemets that cure everything from everywhere. Or the exercie machine of teh month on tv. Still waiitng for AQ new line of wires. Wonder what motif, genere' they will come up with this time. They have done mountains, rivers, reptiles, large cats, etc etc. Maybe herbs or spices next? Great ad in TAS for an incredible detailed drawing of magic wire, has all kinds of channels, and magic properties attached to this latest monthly breakthrough.

My condolences to all the people who've ever had Clifton for a teacher or have had to share a space with him. He cannot discuss or argue the merits of something without taking out his red pen nor can bring himself to learn outside of his chosen field.

Buddha,

> I guess you prefer sniping at those who did. <

If you read through these posts you'll see that Clifton has offered nothing but sniping and insults. At least 301 pretends to care about science, even if his points are all based in pseudoscience and show a decided anti-science bias.

> On the one hand, you like to dismiss other people's written opinions, but you won't take the time to listen to the gear <

Indeed, as far as Clifton is concerned, the only opinions that matter are his own. He is able to hear a difference between this tweak and that, but nobody else can!

> All you've accomplished is joining the camp of those you rail against. <

Precisely.

> You have decided Ethan's product won't work based on your personal reaction to him <

No, he's even more immature than that. Clifton hurls insults just for the sake of insults. Obviously nothing he says is based on even minimal experience with the object of his insults! Which leads right back to:

> All you've accomplished is joining the camp of those you rail against. <

--Ethan

Winer: "301 pretends to care about science, even if his points are all based in pseudoscience and show a decided anti-science bias"

>>Of course an outright lie. My opinions are based on physics, and even asked you to read some books, which you continue to evade page after page. I also include the findings of my two friends who are top level scientists, much of their work is classified.

Now compare that to a high school grad who calls himself a professional enginner, who builds a recording console, uses it, and thinks they are great. Here is a quote for an article he links too, on his website:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#6

"In its long path from here to ear the audio passes through at least a hundred op-amps, dozens of connectors and several hundred metres of ordinary screened cable."

>>So ethan thinks a console is great, ever so proudly; and he thinks it is wonderful to have the signal pass through a 100 op amps, hundreds of meters of cable and dozens of connectors. Is this guy for real?

------------
Fresh clip:
We keep hearing the power supply is defective if a line cord makes a difference.

Fresh clip, could you tell us how the power supply is defective and would you also tell us how a power supply should be designed?

Thanks.

------------
Ethan winer:
"With A/B testing - where you switch between one version and another to audition the difference - it is mandatory that the switch be performed very quickly. If it takes you fifteen minutes to hook up a replacement amplifier, it will be very hard to tell if there truly was a difference, compared to being able to switch between them instantly. Even when switching quickly, it is important that both amplifiers be set to exactly the same volume level."

>>By your earlier comment in this string, it must be withing seconds, not 15 minutes.

OOOps. So how come fresh clips story is ok when the gent was out for longer than a few seconds, like minutes? He needed time to make the cable switch, spead out the other cables to look neat, and to "suggest" to the gent that the same cables were in place.
I thought no "suggestions" were allowed during testing? I thought you were against that?

By the way, if one needs to a switch in a matter of seconds (to preserve one's audio memory), how can one listen to music for a couple of minutes, and still retain his audio memory of the previous switch?

Ethan seems to have a problem contradictionsing himself, pseudo science etc. One always gets tangled when one fabricates.

The decision to switch and for how long to listen is up to the discretion of the listener. It helps if the person has undergone some sort of training to know what to listen for. Rapid switching is beneficial when it comes to issues that are at the limits of detectability. Apart from hearing, this also pertains to our other senses. For example, consider sight and how the process to obtain an optimum prescription involves a fairly close time proximate evaluation. Along the same lines, read up on how the planet Pluto was discovered to illustrate the benefits in keeping the time between comparisons short.

If the differences, whatever they are, become more pronounced, then they have the ability to make it into our long term hearing and we are thus able to 'remember' it. If they're real but of a fleeting duration then they may not make it into our long term hearing. I take it you understand that hearing is a lossy process right?

Listening for differences indeed does not imply that one must have an appreciation for live, unamplified music, sitting in good spots at various good concert halls. In fact, it doesn't necessarily mean that one must have 16 yo 20-20 hearing although if what you're listening for is way up there, hearing deficiences may preclude some degree of detection. It truly does help if you know what you're listening for and if possible, to make that difference large. In a way, it's like playing basketball where you start of easy, maybe with a hoop that's lower than 10 feet.

Sighted comparisons suffer from our inability to control for biases that exist in our subconcious which can influence how we perceive things. What's in our adaptive subconcious varies from individual to individual and most certainly can and does affect our concious decision making process.

Unfortunately chu, your comments do not jive with what ethan stated. Also, it does not jive with what the medical community teaches about hearing/mind, and what ethan himself has presented that contaminates dbt testing.

Also, such slipshod testing methods and time intervals also cause problems.
Can you link one recent subjective audio dbt test? Seems like everyone avoids that question.

I have no problem giving the listener ultimate control of what to listen to, for how long, and to switch to his heart's content until he makes up his mind. I'm not sure what specifically you're referring to 301 with regards to Ethan. If it has to do with comb filtering or rooms with truly bad acoustic properties, then isn't it in the listener's best interest to simply improve his room? If not, please explain.
For an example of a somewhat well know blind test, consider the following: http://www.faktiskt.se/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=103433

Quote:
Unfortunately chu, your comments do not jive with what ethan stated. Also, it does not jive with what the medical community teaches about hearing/mind, and what ethan himself has presented that contaminates dbt testing.

Also, such slipshod testing methods and time intervals also cause problems.
Can you link one recent subjective audio dbt test? Seems like everyone avoids that question.

Sorry, I am not what sure you were referring to with the "medical community teaches about hearing/mind" thing part.

Can you elaborate?

Quick, cause din din is on the way.

1) Hearing memory, or lapses thereof. Especially over and over again vs different kinds of music. This is a function of the brain and the ability to retain what is heard.

Subset, is the confusion factor. Anything that causes one to simply guess; will result in a 50/50 chance of being right.

2) The tiny hairs in the inner ear becoming desensitized, especially when playing the Same portions of music over and over. One of the tricks some use when doing subjective audio dbt testing is to get as many trials as possible.

3) Loudness itself and its desensitizing effects

4) External factors the administrators are not aware of

4) Comb filtering, which causes one to constantly guess during the trial

In essence, JA hit the nail on the head. DBT testing is nothing more than a guessing game. But it is good for midfi sales, which are slumping because of the increase in small companies.
Where is that link to a recent subjective audio dbt test?

Gotta go.

Quote:
Gotta go.

And, with that, I think it's time to close this thread. All that could be said, it seems, has been said. And more. Let's move on to merrier things. This thread has run its course.