In Reply to: What "agenda" is that? posted by Pat D on December 10, 2006 at 10:09:58:
"Just what are those "beliefs?" Please specify."Amplifiers sounding the same
CD players sounding the same
CD playback perfection
All cables sounding the same
"Tweaks" are snake oil
"Please remember, we are not the ones making claims that differences between various accurate amps are audible, that differences in wires are normally audible."Indeed you guys are the ones making the assertion that they are not audible.
" Those who do make such claims have the burden of proof."
Really? Why is that? Why do I have any burden of proof about my subjective opinions? No, the objectivists have the burden of proof because they are the ones claiming their position is scientific. Anyone making *that* claim bears a burden of proof. I no more have a burden of proof in regards to my *opinions* about audio than I do with my opinions about what burger joint has the best burgers. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MY SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF MY AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES ARR SCIENTIFICALLY VALID.Period."And if certain things are proven to be audible, what objection do you have to saying so?"
Oh none. Please show me any peer reviewed published scientific research that proves amps sound the same or CD players sound the same or that CD playback is transparent in practice or that all cables sound the same. Please show me the *legitimate* science that supports the objectivists assertions on audibility.
____________________________________________________________
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The age old agenda about so many things sounding the same - Analog Scott 11:26:07 12/10/06 (48)
- Nope. We just want good methodology. - Pat D 13:04:24 12/10/06 (47)
- I think the vocal objectivists want a double standard - Analog Scott 13:47:19 12/10/06 (46)
- Analog Scott Give Up Pat D Is An Audio Politician - thetubeguy1954 14:14:32 12/11/06 (36)
- Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - Pat D 03:14:05 12/12/06 (2)
- Re: Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - thetubeguy1954 05:47:37 12/12/06 (1)
- Re: Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - Pat D 05:56:07 12/12/06 (0)
- I agree with you in part. - Analog Scott 17:38:08 12/11/06 (32)
- Re: I agree with you in part. - thetubeguy1954 14:17:35 12/12/06 (30)
- But you did win. - Analog Scott 14:26:58 12/12/06 (29)
- And what is this "audio politics?" - Pat D 16:37:50 12/12/06 (28)
- This Is A PERFECT Example Of "Audio Politics?" - thetubeguy1954 07:19:49 12/13/06 (27)
- Dear me! I thought this was an audio discussion forum devoted to technical matters. - Pat D 07:51:38 12/13/06 (26)
- Another Audio Politican Post (Analog Scott Read This) - thetubeguy1954 12:49:37 12/13/06 (25)
- Short questionnaire - Pat D 13:21:25 12/13/06 (24)
- I have already addressed the double standard - Analog Scott 20:32:43 12/13/06 (23)
- Analog Scott This Is Just More Pat D Audio Politics In Action. - thetubeguy1954 07:20:51 12/14/06 (7)
- Man! You'll do anything to avoid proving your audio claims! - Pat D 12:17:37 12/14/06 (6)
- It's Impossibel Prove Them To An Audio Politican Like You Pat - thetubeguy1954 06:58:10 12/15/06 (5)
- See what I mean? TG54 continues to not prove his claims! (nt) - Pat D 07:42:37 12/15/06 (4)
- See what I mean? Pat D-Cake Continues To Audio Politician !(nt) - thetubeguy1954 08:56:02 12/15/06 (3)
- If only someone could explain what "audio politician" means . . . - Pat D 13:25:09 12/15/06 (2)
- I gave you Bunburyist above - kerr 13:53:30 12/15/06 (1)
- Re: I gave you Bunburyist above - Pat D 15:42:41 12/15/06 (0)
- No, you haven't. You just made up a straw man 'belief' for me.. - Pat D 06:10:35 12/14/06 (14)
- Yes I have. nt - Analog Scott 00:08:07 12/16/06 (13)
- I'm glad to see you finally admit it. - Pat D 11:12:14 12/16/06 (12)
- That I have addressed any relevant questions about your double standards? I admitted that a long time ago - Analog Scott 19:07:05 12/16/06 (11)
- I have no obligation to defend positions I don't hold. (nt) - Pat D 21:01:12 12/16/06 (10)
- You do hold them though. - Analog Scott 12:03:00 12/17/06 (9)
- "can't deal " with what, my son? I certainly can deal with your false statements about me. - Pat D 18:31:54 12/17/06 (8)
- Such as? - Analog Scott 21:42:26 12/17/06 (7)
- You make a lot of false statement about what my opinions are but provide no evidence. See link. - Pat D 20:37:55 12/18/06 (3)
- Failure to support your ridiculous alegations noted a second time.. - Analog Scott 20:43:45 12/18/06 (2)
- Is "alegation" a sort of energy drink? (nt) - Pat D 20:57:19 12/18/06 (1)
- No just a spelling error. something anyone with any smarts would see - Analog Scott 21:32:32 12/18/06 (0)
- Failure to support your false alegations against me is duly noted. nt - Analog Scott 09:37:12 12/18/06 (2)
- I thought "alegation" was a kind of sports drink. (nt) - Pat D 20:42:38 12/18/06 (1)
- That makes sense givn what you think about audio and fair conversations. - Analog Scott 21:34:21 12/18/06 (0)
- So, you guys want to make up opinions and attribute them to me. - Pat D 02:37:38 12/12/06 (0)
- Again, what are so-called objectivist's "assertions on what is and is not audible "? - Pat D 16:46:18 12/10/06 (8)
- Love your scenario - kerr 04:56:15 12/12/06 (5)
- Re: Love your scenario - Pat D 16:48:22 12/12/06 (4)
- Re: Love your scenario - kerr 04:18:07 12/13/06 (3)
- Re: Love your scenario - Pat D 16:14:35 12/13/06 (2)
- Re: Love your scenario - kerr 04:53:15 12/14/06 (1)
- Re: Love your scenario - Pat D 20:58:50 12/14/06 (0)
- I suggest you read your own previous post and look for your own assertions - Analog Scott 19:09:03 12/10/06 (1)
- You'll have to come up with something more specific. - Pat D 05:40:40 12/11/06 (0)