In Reply to: Good argument ! (long) posted by cheap-Jack on March 15, 2006 at 09:20:15:
c-J:I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. I too think that at the end of the day, its the listener that has to be drawn closer to his music - and not further alientated. And the "sound" associated with such an engaging and involving system will vary from person to person. This is virtually a universally accepted tenet.
So why then did I get all up in arms? Very good question.
Two reasons:
1. A person was sent three discs. He obviously knew which disc was which (they must have been labelled somehow) since the sender was able to determine that he 'failed to pick the correct floor' but made amazingly different observations - and all three discs were virtually unique from the others.
1. I find it curious that the recipient of these discs simply sat down and 'took notes' on each of the discs - knowing that everytime he inserted a disc he knew which disc it was. He made no effort to have someone help him try and differentiate between the discs without the psychological bias of sighted trials. Again, if he was predisposed to detecting differences, then it would definately be advantageous to know which disc was which - and even refer to previously made notes or comments on that particular disc. The best part of all is that five adjectives were used to describe EACH disc and this resulted in FIFTEEN different adjectives. NO TWO discs had even ONE sonic quality in common - just from being stored in different rooms!! Wow. Were the rooms on different planets for 1,000,000 years?!? Or is the tester creating results (either conciously or unconsciously) to suit the expected outcome?
Let's look at those descriptions again shall we?
CD 1 velvet, dark sibilance, capped highs, dry, little reverberance
CD 2 hollow, fresh highs, cloudy, misty, reverberant
CD 3 bubbly bass, vague, clumsy, spongy, coarse dynamicsAmazing! Now can he tell which disc is playing - blindfolded? Of course he can't. :o)
2. It was really the statement about how 'if (aka since) storage location makes a difference then a particular CD tweak MUST be valid.)
2. I don't really think this reasoning is sound at all. Providing very weak (at best) evidence that ONE crazy tweak works is supposed to validate ANOTHER crazy tweak - since, they are of course, BOTH CRAZY?? This goes to show how far people will go to attempt to sway others with outlandish claims and faulty logic. It seems there was intent to simply "lower the bar" of believability - "This tweak is SO crazy that it makes the usual suspects seem very reasonable". This type of argument gives me a rash and makes my hair fall out.
I stand by my assertion that this "golden ear" disc tester could not differentiate between discs in an ABX, or come up with consistent "descriptions" by only listening - and not knowing which disc was in play. It was this knowlege that permitted the tester to "trick" himself into thinking that he heard three COMPLETELY different discs.Why can't we trust our ears? Oh ears are very trustworthy. It's too bad, however, that they are connected to a human hearing system that includes an easily tricked and biased mind that is very succeptible to the powers of suggestion.
I don't really want to go on and on about this. I just think that when someone makes claims (publically) their credibility is directly proportional to the type of evidence with which they support their claims. "I mailed the discs to an audiophile and he 'confirmed' that all three discs were VASTLY different"... well that's just a little but of a stretch for most of us, subjective or otherwise.
Cheers,
Presto
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Good rebuttle. lol - Presto 17:28:22 03/15/06 (38)
- Try to read between the lines, my friend. - cheap-Jack 07:50:19 03/16/06 (37)
- What I would do is simple. - Presto 14:10:09 03/16/06 (36)
- Trust them or not, we hear with our ears. - cheap-Jack 09:09:33 03/17/06 (33)
- When they learn how to shine some ray through wine and tell us exactly how it tastes... - clarkjohnsen 09:17:14 03/17/06 (32)
- Re: When they learn how to shine some ray through wine and tell us exactly how it tastes... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 10:45:19 03/17/06 (31)
- "We can tell flawed from [good or great]." There you have it, folks. - clarkjohnsen 08:27:53 03/18/06 (30)
- Re: "We can tell flawed from [good or great]." There you have it, folks. - kerr 04:49:18 03/20/06 (1)
- Yes. Thank you! nt - clarkjohnsen 09:27:30 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: a correction - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 00:28:40 03/19/06 (15)
- I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - clarkjohnsen 11:32:19 03/19/06 (14)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - john curl 16:40:18 03/19/06 (7)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Inmate51 08:01:24 04/12/06 (0)
- What's your evidence, John? - real_jj 17:28:30 03/24/06 (0)
- Take a look below and discover how MKJ has weaseled out of his former, undefendable position. Very amusing. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:59:12 03/21/06 (3)
- Now that's just enough! - real_jj 17:31:34 03/24/06 (2)
- He narrowed his claims down to "research" from the broad ones he made earlier. Because he had to! - clarkjohnsen 09:06:36 03/25/06 (1)
- No, Clark, and that is really, really enough - real_jj 10:34:50 03/25/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 01:10:11 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: I too have hung out with wine, beer and coffee people. Never once... - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 13:30:32 03/19/06 (5)
- This has nothing to do with Larry being an amateur. Nor were my claims false. - clarkjohnsen 09:34:41 03/20/06 (4)
- Re: One point of clarification - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:57:32 03/20/06 (0)
- Re: Your claims are false - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 18:17:04 03/20/06 (2)
- Oh, so now it's "wine research". You've narrowed the field of contention dramatically... - clarkjohnsen 07:56:51 03/21/06 (1)
- bullcrap - real_jj 17:34:10 03/24/06 (0)
- Martians regularly visit my apartment... - andy_c 20:24:43 03/18/06 (1)
- Re: Martians regularly visit my apartment... - kerr 04:55:02 03/20/06 (0)
- Well, Clark I agree to a point. - Presto 12:32:27 03/18/06 (9)
- Re: Well, Clark I agree to a point. - theaudiohobby 16:20:17 03/18/06 (8)
- Chris Sommovigo said it elegantly, for us who listen. - clarkjohnsen 10:37:24 03/19/06 (7)
- Irrelevant.... - real_jj 14:01:57 03/31/06 (3)
- "I would prefer it if you would be more logical in the future." And *I* would prefer it if... - clarkjohnsen 10:15:20 04/01/06 (2)
- Just accept the truth, Clark - real_jj 20:25:41 04/05/06 (1)
- Still making a spectator sport of yourself we see. - clarkjohnsen 08:00:02 04/06/06 (0)
- Re: He's full of it - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 11:30:42 03/19/06 (2)
- Notice you didn't mention Paul Prudhomme, nor did you take Chris's point. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:35:15 03/19/06 (1)
- Re: Notice you didn't mention Paul Prudhomme, nor did you take Chris's point. nt - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 13:32:21 03/19/06 (0)
- Re: A better method - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 00:16:19 03/17/06 (1)
- HEAR HEAR! EXACTLY!!! lol Nicely Put. (nt) - Presto 12:33:29 03/18/06 (0)