Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (
More info?)
From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 6/28/2004 3:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cbq7a401ko9@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>>>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>>>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com,
>"Nousaine"
>>>>>>>><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
>>>>>here
>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>> both sides.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything
>that
>>>>>can
>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>> heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
>>>>>measure
>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>> difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something
>similar.
>>>I
>>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>>> asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
>>>sound
>>>>>>>>.....
>>>>>>>>> and I don't recall a response.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that
>we
>>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>>> already done?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
>>>>>people
>>>>>>>>were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor
>are
>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>the expert on what measurements to make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices?
>Are
>>>>>some
>>>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest
>you
>>>>>pose
>>>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>>>about the questions.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
>>>with
>>>> any eroneous conclusions they may draw.
>>>
>>>Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
>>>conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
>>>conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
>>>upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.
>>>
>>>> The question is better answered by the
>>>> designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>>>> designers.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>>>you
>>>>>> should have already considered this.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>>>think. And question.
>>>>
>>>> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>>>> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
>>>
>>>Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
>>>process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
>>>give an educated guess.
>>
>> What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than
>shark
>> food.
>>
>> Or start thinking about an answer.
>>
>> Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get
>without
>> becoming EEs.
>
>In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway.
If the answers are not simple and easy for the layman to get then I am not that
interestred.
So why
>are you even interested in Tom's question?
Because it looked to me like bait for a shell game.
>
>In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
>design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
>make measurements that show those products work.
If that was the question then it was based on a false premise. Bromo never
claimed "no one knows how to make measurements that shows those products work."
Seems like a legitimate
>and fair question to ask on this forum.
Perhaps it does until one realizes it may be premised on a flase assumption.But
then you are speaking for Tom here. I thought that wasn't even allowed. Oh
well.
And it can be considered a good
>rhetorical question, too.
Personally I think good rhetorical question is an oxymoron.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I think Tom
>>>> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer
>so
>>>he
>>>> can pounce on that person.
>>>
>>>Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"?
>>
>> I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is
>of
>> no interest to Tom fine.
>
>Actually I believe that Tom would want to see some examples, too. Didn't
>Tom asked you for some similar examples?
>
>>
>> If it were truly a
>>>technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points
>>>that out?
>>
>> Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have
>our
>> hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for
>that
>> is simply baiting a sure win debate.
>
>Would you equate pointing out a technically wrong explanation as
>attacking the opinion?
>
>>May be great for the ego but it does
>> nothing to advance the hobby of audio.
>
>You think asking the proper questions, or refuting the technically wrong
>opinions, does nothing to advance the understanding of audio among
>hobbyists?
>
>Just today, Mr. Bromo learned that there are 16 information bits in CD
>samples, because people corrected him. I would say that his
>understanding of audio has been advanced tremendously.
>
>>I noticed nobody took the bait.
>
>I noticed nobody else complained about Tom's questions either.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets
>>>> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>>>designer.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be
>> relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about
>> another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't.
>>
>> The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too.
>>
>> They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written?
>
>Why would you interpret it as a rule? I am making a suggestion, and
>somehow you read that as me imposing a rule?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>>>
>>>> Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so
>sometimes.
>>>
>>>Care to cite examples?
>>>
>>
>> Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to
>> persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see.
>
>That part is clear to me.
>
>>I think it has been
>> pretty obvious.
>
>Then examples would be easy to cite, no?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter