In Reply to: Re: Good rebuttle. lol posted by Presto on March 15, 2006 at 17:28:22:
Hi.The message I got from this so called "total blind test" of the 3 CDs is the auditioner involved did hear the difference. It shows me that he got good ears & audio gears of high resolution.
Whatever terminology he employed, e.g. "velvet", "hollow", "bubbly bass" etc etc is not important as I said repeatedly sonics is personally subjective. His "velvet" could mean nothing to me.
So why worry about those adjectives he used?Were you in his shoes, & you did hear the difference, you would still tell us how different the CDs would sound. Would you go further to substanatiate why you had used such & so adjectives?
BUT, should he have ever pointed out which types of floor used to store the different CDs, regardless the answer was right or wrong, I would be the first guy to demand evidence from him to substantiate his claim as such.
But he failed to tell & admited so, meaning he is honest to tell the world he did detect some sonic difference but not enough to tell what floors were involved, which is the main purpose of the test & which he claims he can do. He failed the mission impossible.
What more nitpicking you still want from him?
Now hopefully you know what I want to tell those objectivists:
unless they can come up with some tests, proven valid & effective, to supplement whatever sonic impressions are made by a poster here, please refrain from attacking groundlessly.Also, I notice you used the word "claim" repeatedly to quote his sonic impressions on the CDs. Why? IMO, he did not make any "claims".
He just delivered his sonic impressions on the 3 CDs as requested by the original poster here."Claim" is defined as "demand for a thing supposed due; right."
Unless I missed a lot, he did not seem to make any claims at all.c-J
PS: I never know anybody here to speak on its behalf. I just hereby
try to analyse things fairly impartially (I hope).
Isn't this an "engineer" should do?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)