|   The Objectivist Mantra... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 28, 2001 11:06 AM | | The great Shakespeare once wrote: "Be true to thine own self...". This could be equated to "trust your ears".
However, let us not forget the words of Pete Townsend: "If I swallow anything evil, put your finger down my throat...".
To this, the subjectivists might say: "Get your stinky finger out of my throat."
Objectivist: "But you swallowed something evil."
Subjectivist: "You wouldn't know evil if it bit you in the ass."
Objectivist: "I'm just trying to save you."
Subjectivist: "Stick you finger down your own throat."
Objectivist: "Then I'd throw up all over you."
Subjectivist: "Bite me."
Objectivist: "Fine, die happy."
Subjectivist: "Sticking my finger down your throat would make me happy."
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
etc. |
| re: The Objectivist Mantra... | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 11:31 AM | | That's quite a broad idea of a subjectivist, isn't it??? (Black and white, anyone???)
Amusing, though... |
| hiedegger erased the subjective/objective debate... | Dick No Longer Hurts
Nov 28, 2001 11:47 AM | | ...with his concept of dasein (being-in-the-world). thomas kuhn erased the objectivity of science with his concept of paradigm shift. Wittgenstein erased the fido/Fido principle with his concept of "forms of life." And Derrida erased erasure with deconstruction. the truth, with a capital "T", is that there is no truth, which is a ladder that has to be discarded once one grasps this Truth to avoid a regress. any questions should be addressed to my slave c jo. she is hot to trot. |
| no,nothing too deep for me, please, well except,you know ... | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:03 PM | | My "first-rate intelligence" (as per F.Scott Fitzgerald in 'The Crack Up')"is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" which I can do exceedingly well. So, if you're looking for absolute Truth, I'm not the one to ask, as I make up my own version at any given point in time... so follow me through the looking-glass and down the RABBIT HOLE hahahaha |
| can you believe the idiot erased my post?! | slippery dick
Nov 28, 2001 12:09 PM | | like, what's wrong with philosophy now? the proposition that adam is not an idiot is straining my credulity. |
| i was astounded! this is getting like, sooooooo | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:12 PM | | tiresome. it's boring my eMensa brain to tears hahahahahah |
| he's an idiot, and I've been defending him | slippery dick
Nov 28, 2001 12:15 PM | | |
| can you believe the idiot erased my post?! | Adam
Nov 28, 2001 12:14 PM | | very simple, so long as you continue to post with inapropriate names your posts will be deleted. If you want to post, choose a monicker that does not represent nor mimic any other members. I can delete all your posts with 1 click so its not a problem for me if you want to continue posting in violation of the rules.
And as for calling me an idiot, when will you learn to follow the TOS? No offense of course but to post in violation of the TOS is pretty idiotic since it will be deleted. |
| truth hurts, but my dick don't -- you are an idiot confirmed | slippery dick
Nov 28, 2001 12:16 PM | | |
| i disagree, respectfully | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:18 PM | | you seem to be deleting completely innocuous messages, like why did you delete my question about thisbe and pyramus? That was not offensive at all, and was not breaking any rules. |
| you are correct | Adam
Nov 28, 2001 12:20 PM | | I deleted your post...not because it was offensive but becasue your other ones were. If you want to talk about it offline email me. I don't hide like so many others, my email address is open. |
| how was quoting F Scott Fitzgerald offensive? | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:21 PM | | |
| i think you have me confused with that other person's posts | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:22 PM | | |
| hey do you remember the tale of thisbe and pyramus? | cJo
Nov 28, 2001 12:15 PM | | (she communicates with her lover through a gap in a wall (kind of like ar hahahaha) and then dies for him. |
| Flies like sh**, but that don't make it good | Dick No Longer Hurts
Nov 28, 2001 11:38 AM | | when you encourage someone to "trust their ears", aren't you saying quality is relative? Push pin is as good as Puskin. God sets the standard of fidelity and man flaunts it, we are sinking into moral decay. The subjectivists are leading us to hell. |
| The Arrogant Assumption | Jon Risch
Nov 28, 2001 4:44 PM | | First, you portray subjectivists in a poor light, commiting ad homenium argument against all subjectivists.
You also assume that anyone who disagrees with YOUR notion that audio cables do not have significant sonic differences, is in need of saving, or being saved from themselves. The implication here again is that folks who appreciate and hear audio cable differences are stupid, deluded, gullible, etc., and need saving.
The whole idea that a huge number of audiophiles and music lovers need saving from themselves seems to the basic justification for the need to post continual POV stances, derision of posters who describe their sonic experiences with cables, and the ever present mantra of "just buy zip cords" to those asking for upgrade advice.
Doesn't that take an incredible amount of arrogance and 'holier than thou' attitude for one to actually believe they have the inside knowledge over all these other people, despite repeated posts by music lovers and audiophiles that readily share their positive experiences about high performance audio cables?
In addition, in order to take this kind of stance to the extremes that occur on this board, and certain other locations on the web, one has to totally ignore all the presented scientific evidence, the anecdotal evidence, and the sheer numbers involved. All supposedly based on the very unstable and questionable listening test results of few amateur nulls.
How can there possibly be any rational, moral or logical justification for doing this to such extremes? To the point of telling folks to NOT listen to cables (unless you perform the DBT, you MUST perform the DBT!), and to just buy zip cords at a hardware store!
I can see no reasonable justification for it, other than ego, and sense of feeling so superior to all those poor deluded people. Not exactly a helpful or charitable outlook as the driving force behind all the hoopla.
Jon Risch |
| The Arrogant Assumption | Eyespy
Nov 28, 2001 9:03 PM | | "one has to totally ignore all the presented scientific evidence,"
Jon, where is all this "scientific evidence" you allude to that shows that cables of similar gauge and length, but of dissimilar cost, sound different? |
| The Arrogant Assumption | mtrycrafts
Nov 28, 2001 11:03 PM | | "and to just buy zip cords at a hardware store! "
Frequently they are told to buy it at partsexpress.com hardly a hardware store, Jon.
"To the point of telling folks to NOT listen to cables (unless you perform the DBT, you MUST perform the DBT!), "
Oh, Jon, dreaming again, making up things not in evidence. Why must you distort all the time?
"one has to totally ignore all the presented scientific evidence,"
Evidence? That is funny, JOn, that is exactely what we like you to supply, evidence. Why is it so difficult?
"the anecdotal evidence, and the sheer numbers involved""
Oh, Jon, why do you do this? Is this how one arrives at facts by the sheer number of testimonials and anecdotes? No wonder you have so much science fiction under your penned posts. I suppose then alien abductions must be taken seriously, psychics as well, Silvia Brown, et al, etc. I really feel for you if this is your level of evidence and pseudoscience. |
| The Arrogant Ass_umption | JoeW
Nov 28, 2001 11:47 PM | | >"To the point of telling folks to NOT listen to cables (unless you perform the DBT, you MUST perform the DBT!), "
>Oh, Jon, dreaming again, making up things not in evidence. Why must you distort all the time?
If I had a dime for everytime you've said that 'sighted' listening is unreliable, or meaningless, I could have some really expensive cables at zero cost to me. This makes your statement a falsehood, and a direct personal attack.
>"the anecdotal evidence, and the sheer numbers involved""
>Oh, Jon, why do you do this? Is this how one arrives at facts by the sheer number of testimonials and anecdotes?
Your assumptions to the contrary, there are no hard scientific facts to either side. Anecdotal evidence is just that: it is neither proof nor meaningless in the absense of hard evidence. It likely points to something that is not understood, but it might not. It would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand, with no hard evidence either way.
>I suppose then alien abductions must be taken seriously, psychics as well, Silvia Brown, et al, etc. I really feel for you if this is your level of evidence and pseudoscience.
I suppose if you EVER presented any evidence to any of your claims - the validity of DBT, performance of RS IC's, HD 12g etc, you would be entitled to ask evidence of those who disagree with you.
You have proven repeatedly that you will refuse to offer any evidence, or personal experience.
When pressed, you respond with attack and insult. That you need to resort to alien abduction and psychics to make your points reveals how little you have to work with. As you are fond of pointing out, not all opinions are of equal weight. This certainly applies here.
Try using some facts when making your points and you may get some in return. Until then, you are owed none. |
| ...and in a text book case of the pot calling the kettle black.. | Resident Loser
Nov 29, 2001 6:19 AM | | ...Mr. Risch, if I were you, I'd be real careful about making comments about anyone elses' ego or altruistic motivation...
jimHJJ(...we've been down this road afore...) |
| In defense of Mr. Risch (and myself) | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 8:05 AM | | I believe that Mr. Risch, much like myself, have never conclusively proved to anyone that cables DO make an audible difference. On this point, Mtry is correct. Yet, I believe we are not motivated by ego, but rather a continuous quest for learning, and pushing the boundaries of human understanding. We have both proven that using standard electrical theories (yes, I know they are Theories, but so is relativity and evolution, and gravity was once a theory rather than a law) that there is a difference in electrical performance. We are often asked for specific numbers. I instead respond with formulas, which will provide any numbers you need, and you can plug in the values you wish. This still does not satisfy some of you. Whether or not it translates to audibility is another matter altogether, and this would require an in-depth knowledge of the workings of the human ear as well as the human psyche. It is a commonly accepted "fact" that average human hearing is from roughly 20Hz to 20Khz. This can be compared to average human vision as being rated at 20/20. Can some people see better than 20/20? Yes. Do some people need to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses just for reading, while others need them constantly just to see 3 feet ahead of them? Yes. Why, then, could the same not be true of human hearing, and that what is imperceptible to most MAY be perceived by some. The refusal to even consider the possibility of this is downright arrogant. If we were to be limited to this type of thinking, Columbus would never have set sail. The names Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein would be unknown to us as well. OJ would have gone to jail (ha ha). For those whose narrow minded views do not allow for possibilities outside the small realm of their understanding, I pity them. |
| In defense of Mr. Risch (and myself) | FLZapped
Nov 29, 2001 9:05 AM | | Ah, a theory is a great thing. However, in Mr. Risch's case, he has only speculation. He hasn't even reisen to the point of theory yet.
He has no models, no math, no measurements, nothing but words. And some of his writing contain errors and errors in some of the literature he references which have been pointed out, but he refuses to acknowlege it and make the necessary changes.
And if that isn't bad enough, he tries to pass this science fiction off as fact since the late 90's from what I understand. You would think in that time he would have developed them beyond a few paragraphs of speculation.
Now watch how I will probably get viciously attacked for this observation and accused of having a personal vendetta....
-Bruce |
| In defense of Mr. Risch (and myself) | GCM
Nov 29, 2001 9:51 AM | | "Yet, I believe we are not motivated by ego, but rather a continuous quest for learning, and pushing the boundaries of human understanding. We have both proven that using standard electrical theories"
Where is this proof? Amecdotes are not proof.
"We are often asked for specific numbers."
No, you're asked for proof of audible difference in the form of a DBT.
"I instead respond with formulas, which will provide any numbers you need, and you can plug in the values you wish"
So what? Formulae do not provide evidence of audible difference.
"This still does not satisfy some of you."
Of course not. It proves nothing.
"This can be compared to average human vision as being rated at 20/20. Can some people see better than 20/20? Yes. Do some people need to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses just for reading, while others need them constantly just to see 3 feet ahead of them? Yes. Why, then, could the same not be true of human hearing, and that what is imperceptible to most MAY be perceived by some"
Again, so what. Just as you can claim to hear audible differences among cables I could claim to read a newspaper a mile away. Until I actually prove it, my claim means nothing.
"The refusal to even consider the possibility of this is downright arrogant. "
I believe we all consider it possible. We merely await reliable evidence of its existence.
"Columbus would never have set sail."
Interesting. Columbus chose not to believe what he was seeing and looked for another alternative. Unlike some who blindly accept what they believe they hear without looking for an alternate explanation.
"The names Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein would be unknown to us as well. "
And some of their theories weren't proven for years. In the case of Einstein, some of his theories are either not proven, or shown to be incorrect. |
| And this has exactly what to do with my response... | Resident Loser
Nov 29, 2001 10:11 AM | | ...to Mr. Rischs' contribution?
BTW, when did anyone deny the fact that different folks hear "differently" or see or percieve or taste or smell or...? Ask someone who suffers from synaesthesia how it affects their senses...
Additionally, when did anyone take exception to the fact that wiring CAN affect percieved sound? My question has always been, is that "improvement" (as is so often touted) or simply difference? What may be an improvement to you, may sound wrong to me. Am I supposed to have that hi-hat in my face or be painfullly aware of the bassists' fingers sliding on the string windings? Said examples may be an egregious overstatement, but you get my drift.
I have and will continue to take exception to those yea-sayers who, in knee-jerk response, state that cables are the magic elixir and cure-all for various and sundry audio ills! If the information is not contained in your source material, soundstage, "air", and the myriad of other subective "audio-speak" bits of the grail, will not appear as if by wizardry due to your wire or insulation or solder composition or the precious-metal plating or the extra decimal place in the assayed purity of your copper; there are those who adamantly claim that they will.
jimHJJ(...this place IS like deja vu all over again...) |
| Actually.... | Jon Risch
Nov 29, 2001 10:45 AM | | ...I have conclusively proved cable audibility.
About 2 dozen people have either seen me achieve statistically significant positives time and again, OR they themselves were able to do so (about a dozen). Double blind equivalent, controlled conditions, forced choice ala my methodology (which has not been duplicated by ANY of the nayseayers).
Since I have never formally published in a peer-reviewed journal, my accounts are considered anecdotal.
Others have tried my methods, Vandy was one who got positive results, and others outside my personal aquaintance have also used it successfully.
It has been DEMANDED of me that I submit to a listening test scrutinized by some naysayer, to 'prove' myself to them. It has also been demanded that I reveal the names of those who participated in said listening tests. I refuse to submit to some sort of kangaroo naysayer listening test, and I refuse to reveal the names of those people, whom would certainly not appreciate being descended on by a bunch of naysayer locusts who would probably call them liars too.
I mean, we can not even agree what constitutes a valid listening test, what confidence levels are appropriate, none of the details. The naysayers want to admit anecdotal nulls as solid gold negatives, and want to ignore all else.
Jon Risch |
| Actually.... | FLZapped
Nov 29, 2001 11:48 AM | | [...I have conclusively proved cable audibility. ]
So where is your Nobel Prize in Science? Undocumented heresay.
[About 2 dozen people have either seen me achieve statistically significant positives time and again, OR they themselves were able to do so (about a dozen). Double blind equivalent, controlled conditions, forced choice ala my methodology ]
This is more undocumented heresay.
You moan about arguing over what constitutes a valid test, while having failed to produce any evidence from any test you have allegedly done. Heresay, is all you have.
-Bruce |
| Actually.... | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 12:07 AM | | When Vandy was asked to show us, to demonstrate to third parties, he ran, never to be heard from since. That is Jon's evidence? A no show? |
| Hey Jon (off-topic question) | skippy
Nov 29, 2001 1:11 PM | | You mentioned Vandy in your post. I haven't seen him around in a while, although my attendance has been sporadic as well and maybe I just missed his posts. Do you know what he's up to these days? Does he post on another forum?
Thanks,
skippy |
| Hey Jon (off-topic question) | Jon Risch
Nov 29, 2001 5:29 PM | | I have not heard from him since shortly after his listening tests.
He seemed to be very fatigued and stressed from all the listening, and very disillusioned with the fuss and accusations here at AR resulting from his posting his test results.
I have not seen him post anywhere else.
Jon Risch |
| Hey Jon (off-topic question) | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 12:10 AM | | No, Jon, he was not willing and able to demonstrate his claims to third parties, to witnesses. So, jou have another no show, another testimonial, no evidence. |
| Actually.... | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 12:05 AM | | "...I have conclusively proved cable audibility. "
Oh, JOn, don;t make me laugh so hard. You may have in your mind, to yourself. That is hadly anything but a self proof that has no meaning to anyone.
"About 2 dozen people have either seen me achieve statistically significant positives time and again, "
Yes, JOn, yet you will not demonstrate to credible third parties. Hence, you have just another unsupported claim, nothing more. Those 2 dozen can be fooled as well.
"Double blind equivalent, "
What is that? No such thing.
"Since I have never formally published in a peer-reviewed journal, "
You havent published anywhere, let alone a peer paper.
"Vandy was one who got positive results, and others outside my personal aquaintance have also used it successfully.
"
Yes, he has. And when asked to demonstrate to third parties, he ran as fast as he could. So, you see, you have nothing, again. Notheing that you nor he can demonstrate to credible third parties.
Thatnsk for your testimonials. That is all it is.
"I mean, we can not even agree what constitutes a valid listening test, what confidence levels are appropriate, "
No, Jon, you cannot. The confidence levels are standard that you cannot accept. Again, you have nothing to offer.
"want to ignore all else. "
No, Jon, yours have been scrutinized. You are not willing to demonstrate what you can do. You have nothing credible. |
| About Vandy | GCM
Nov 30, 2001 6:02 AM | | He reported positive identifications in a statistically significant, though hardly overwhelming number of trials. His conclusion though was that although he could detect differences, they were so small and insignificant, that the extra cost of more expensive cables could not be justified. So although he claims to have detected very subtle differences, he was unable to verify all the wild claims of "air around instruments" "increased soundstage", etc. |
| About Vandy | Jon Risch
Nov 30, 2001 10:33 AM | | Since you have not participated or conducted such tests (to my knowledge), then you do not realize the significance of his results.
On his first try, with no specialized training, he achieved a statistically significant positive result.
Having done these tests, having listened to so many, and heard the comments by others who have participated when I was the administrator, I know just how difficult it is to hear ANYTHING during a forced choice test.
If Vandy thought that the differences were very small WHEN LISTENING DURING THE TESTS then it was probably as much because such differences are very hard to discern at all during test conditions, and during normal listening for pleasure, it is much easier to relax and notice things, and appreciate them more.
If someone were to try and make a judgement based on his initial experience with such testing, or as some of the hard line objectionists do, conduct a single questionable listening test and then decide that it is all just snake oil, then this is not a good way to go about it, more experience would change the probable outcomes adn the perceived amount of difference, although there does seem to be a limit as to how much can be heard using forced choice methods, probably as much due to the limitations of auditory memory and the ability to maintain a very tight mental focus for any longer than a relatively short time period.
Jon Risch |
| About Vandy | GCM
Nov 30, 2001 11:16 AM | | "If Vandy thought that the differences were very small WHEN LISTENING DURING THE TESTS then it was probably as much because such differences are very hard to discern at all during test conditions, and during normal listening for pleasure, it is much easier to relax and notice things, and appreciate them more. "
Although I can't speak for him, I don't recall him mentioning identifying the cables being more difficult during the test than not. I would also assume that he wouldn't make such a conclusion if he felt the differences were more dramatic during informal listening.
I do realize the significance of his results. I also recognize the significance of reproducing them. He didn't tell me personally why he left the board so I won't speculate. But I do remember another fellow, his name escapes me but it was oriental sounding, who claimed similar results. Turns out he lives close to me. When invited to reproduce his results with me in attendance, he made a flimsy excuse or two and disappeared into the night.
The one inconsistency that still troubles me, and to which I have yet received adequate explanation, is how are these differences so difficult to notice during a test, yet people often say you have to be deaf not to hear them. I've never heard people taking the Coke/Pepsi challenge as getting tense and confused, I don't understand why this is different. |
| About Vandy | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 10:28 PM | | "He didn't tell me personally why he left the board so I won't speculate"
After his results were posted, he was challanged to repeat to third party. No response, no further post from him.
"he made a flimsy excuse or two and disappeared into the night. "
This is the norm. Happened many times. Recently Richard Green made a challange to a poster in LA. That was the last post. They drop like flies, including Jon, although he sticks around.
"I don't understand why this is different."
A convenient excuse when one fails a test. Or about to undertake one. Any excuse will do. Jon is good at that. |
| About Vandy | mtrycrafts
Nov 30, 2001 10:22 PM | | "Since you have not participated or conducted such tests (to my knowledge), then you do not realize the significance of his results. "
ZERO SIGNIFICANCE!!!
Useless if he cannot dupliicate or demonstrate his ability. He ran at that point. He has a testimonial, nothing more as it cannot be verified.
"On his first try, with no specialized training, he achieved a statistically significant positive result. "
An unsupported claim. He ran when asked to repeat to third party. Meaningless outcome. Might as well claim levitation.
" I know just how difficult it is to hear ANYTHING during a forced choice test."
More excuses.
"because such differences are very hard to discern at all during test conditions"
Wrong, Jon. It is impossible in a DBT. No one has done it yet. He and you just claim it. |
| About Vandy | Jon Risch
Dec 1, 2001 7:51 AM | | [ "because such differences are very hard to discern at all during test conditions"
Wrong, Jon. It is impossible in a DBT. ]
So now it is _impossible_ to discern cable differences in a DBT? What do you base this claim on?
Surely not the paltry few popular press articles, there are NO peer-reviewed professional journal papers, there is no good hard evidence to make this claim, yet, you make it anyway.
You have been asked to supply the logical reasons that lead you to believe that audio cables can not have sonic differences, yet the only response you can muster, is that the burden of proof is not on you.
However, on the other hand, you have not provided one scientific or logical reason to believe that there can not be audible differences between cables. So called absent proof is not even a factor, what with the VERY SMALL number of amatuer listening test null results. It would not be scientific to put much faith in such a limited sample of questionable validity.
This reminds me of Tom Nousaine, when pressed about what he would do if listening test positives occured for audio cables, he simply stated the truth, that he would refuse to believe it.
This is the real "science" behind the naysayers, they pretend to be scientific, they pretend to be objective, but it is really a belief system, a religion, not logic or reasoning, or science.
I seem to recall that before Vandy had his results, you were posting that all you wanted was for some one other than myself to come forward with positive tests results. (As a matter of fact, Richard Greene also said the same thing, he just wanted one other person besides me to come forward and state that they also heard audio cable sonics under contolled conditions.) You claimed at the time, that this would be good enough for you. Then Vandy posted his results, and a few others came forward.
THEN, you changed your tune, and said that no, these were not valid or acceptable, you had to have things verified, you wanted a full-blown paper, and so on. The gist of it was, you were now saying that these other people were lying, that they could not be trusted (as you were already saying about me), and that without someone to witness their results, or someone else to test them, you would refuse to believe them, their results wre not valid.
(I note again, that Richard Greene also did the same thing, that when presented with the results of others beside myself, he then demanded yet further evidence).
As I have stated before, there is little point in being "tested" if we can not even agree on what the results of such test mean, what is a valid confidence level, what are valid procedures, etc.
You try to make it seem as if Vandy "ran away" when challenged.
This is ludicrous coming from you, who runs away every time you are asked to back up YOUR assertions.
I know how he feels though, he proved it to himself, and it does seem as though nothing will ever satisfy the naysayers, so why bother to go through another listening ordeal, only to have it dismissed as well, along with the very high likelyhood of slander, lies and falsehoods being spread about the so-called results of such an endeavor. I have no doubt that you and many other naysayers would claim that a certain listening test was a null, and equated to a negative, when some one else might consider it a positive. Then there would be name calling, and no truth or conclusion would come of it, only more BS and more lies and more naysaying.
No subjective frog is so stupid as to let the naysayer scorpion ride on his back across the river of listening tests.
Jon Risch |
| About Vandy | mtrycrafts
Dec 1, 2001 4:13 PM | | "So now it is _impossible_ to discern cable differences in a DBT? What do you base this claim on?
Surely not the paltry few popular press articles, there are NO peer-reviewed professional journal papers, there is no good hard evidence to make this claim, yet, you make it anyway.
"
Am I mistaken? Your evidence can be found where, JOn? 20+ years of trying and the evidence is where, Jon? This isn't a hunt for the gravitons.
"logical reasons that lead you to believe that audio cables can not have sonic differences, "
Oh, but they can sound different, Jon, and that has been demonstrated. You just don't like to know why and why they don't sound different. How about your limited hearing ability.
"I seem to recall that before Vandy had his results, you were posting that all you wanted was for some one other than myself to come forward with positive tests results. "
Oh, but was it credible? Was he willing to demonstrate that what he really claimed is really what happened, or, just another FLAWED PROTOCOL AS IS YOURS. But, you will never know as you are not interested, only posturing.
"you wanted a full-blown paper, and so on"
Oh, Jon, just another one of your distrortions and disinformation campaigns and you know it. All I want is a credible demonstration, not your word, or Vandy's word. That is easy to write up. Demonstration to third parties, that is a different issue. But, you are not interested in that and YOU made it quite clear. You are not interested in demonstrating as all you need is a self proof. That is all you have, a personal reality. Worthless to anyone else. You have nothing, JOn.
"As I have stated before, there is little point in being "tested" if we can not even agree on what the results of such test mean, what is a valid confidence level, what are valid procedures, etc. "
You cannot agree. You have a distorted view what is acceptable in the field.
"You try to make it seem as if Vandy "ran away" when challenged.
This is ludicrous coming from you, who runs away every time you are asked to back up YOUR assertions. "
Oh? He didn't run? Interesting. After all, he did claim to hear differneces and listed his outcome. He is in the hotseat. Stop distorting the issues and try to shift the burden, JOn. He made the claims for audible differneces, he has the burden. He ran. Quite clear.You ran as well.
"I know how he feels though, he proved it to himself,"
Well, we will never know what he did or didn't do. We know what he posted. We have no idea how good or faulty his protocols are, so, while he may think he did, that is all he can do. Certainly doesn't know, just like you. But, only a self reality is important. Enjoy it.
" and it does seem as though nothing will ever satisfy the naysayers, "
WRONG!!! He was told what is needed, a demonstration to 3rd parties. He ran as did you.
"so why bother to go through another listening ordeal, only to have it dismissed as well, "
Wrong again. If it is a credible demonstration, it is accepted. As it is, it is nothing as your claims are.
"when some one else might consider it a positive. "
Yes, Jon, some can distort and make up all sorts of excuses. Don;t have to look too far.
Just full of excuses, Jon, instead of demonstrating. But then, you have nothing to gain, everything to loose. |
| Subjective frog versus naysayer scorpion? | Richard Greene
Dec 3, 2001 3:32 PM | | "No subjective frog is so stupid as to let the naysayer
scorpion ride on his back across the river of listening tests."
Jon Risch
That's just too clever -- who's your ghost writer?
Mtrycrafts?
Risch wrote:
"Richard Greene also said the same thing, he just wanted one other person besides me to come forward and state that they also heard audio cable sonics under contolled conditions.)
RG RESPONDS:
ONE person is enough if the test methodology is good (we don't want
one thick wire playing louder than one thin wire, for example, or one of the wires with a loose, noisy connection). For internet claims there should be an independent witness who simply posts something like:
"I was there and Risch's claims are real",or;
"I was there and I heard differences too."
I might have been happy with no witnesses because I usually give the
benefit of the doubt to engineers like Risch -- engineers are usually
honest data-driven people ... but when I read his claim to be able to hear differences among wire INSULATION materials under blind conditions, and hear them so well that he could rank-order insulation materials by sound quality, that set off my "That's Hard To Believe Detector" (formerly known as my "Bullshit Detector").
Not that my detector is 100% accurate.
Risch wrote:
"You claimed at the time, that this would be good enough for you. Then Vandy posted his results, and a few others came forward. ... THEN, (I note again, that Richard Greene also did the same thing, that when presented with the results of others beside myself, he then demanded yet further evidence)."
RG REPLIES:
SORRY, but a post on the internet by one person who claims to have heard wire differences under blind conditions was weak evidence -- a post by a second unrelated person (Vandy) helped. I didn't catch any other related posts, so I'll have to take your word about those.
A dozen independent posts would be much better because the internet is not a reliable source of information -- that's why I added there should be at least ONE independent (not the wife!) witness to verify an internet claim, especially because there are so few internet claims of wire audibility under blind conditions.
Risch said he had witnesses and knows others who can hear wire differences -- no names were given (that's okay) ... but it appears that not one of these people were willing to talk to us at audioreview.com. I guess they are afraid that we'd ask tough follow-up questions about the test methodology!
Vandy added his name to Risch's but soon after people started asking him questions about his wire test methodology, he disappeared from this website, apparently forever!
Even a true "wirenut" (an affectionate term, not an insult) like Risch would have to admit there is little evidence to support his claim that differences among wires are audible under blind conditions. Little evidence is not no evidence ... but thousands of people buy premium wires and claim to hear easily audible, and sometimes huge, differences. It's interesting that so few of them try an easy-to-do single-blind cable-swap "test" to check if the perceived differences are real ... or imaginary.
Those of us who have tried to hear wire differences under blind conditions and failed will buy inexpensive wires -- we're not obligated to prove there are no audible differences -- but people who recommend to others that buying more expensive wires will IMPROVE sound quality ought to do a better job proving more expensive wires are audible.
So far in the 35 years that I've been an audiophile, fellow audiophiles (other than Risch) have done a poor job defending
their statements and beliefs about premium wires.
So the "wire wars" come down to this:
RG: Lot's of "wirenuts" claim they hear differences among wires
and recommend premium wires to others ... but every one of them I've |
| In defense of Mr. Risch (and myself) | mtrycrafts
Nov 29, 2001 11:50 PM | | "Yet, I believe we are not motivated by ego, but rather a continuous quest for learning, and pushing the boundaries of human understanding. "
In cables? Give me a break.
"Can some people see better than 20/20? Yes."
And there is a limit to what they can see, just as hearing limits are well known. Please consult the literature on it. |
| You missed it... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 29, 2001 10:14 AM | | The actual point of the post was to have a little fun, to portray both sides as having fairly meaningless postions in the overall scheme of things.
I don't intend to "save" anyone. I mean we're talking about audio cables here not heart surgery. My whole intent is to persuade people to step back and take an objective view of the process of selecting cables. To simply plow ahead because you "heard some improvement" during a home cable test is a fairly large leap of faith.
Do you believe that people at the end of psychic hotlines can actually predict your future? If not, what approach would take if your wife or good friend was not only spending large amounts of money on these scammers each week, but was also following the advice given? Surely you would try to reason with such a person. In the end, if they listened to your arguements and still kept calling, you should just say, OK it's your money. (unless it's your wife, that is)
I only propose that there are many possible reasons that there is an apparent improvement after a cable swap. I feel that to dismiss all possibilities other than the one that the cables made the difference, is hasty and emotional. Sometimes large amounts of money are involved and I don't know about everybody, but I put some thought into spending my money.
I'm not sure why you see this as arrogant. Personally, the responses to posts like mine, if I were to post at a site like AA, are what I would consider arrogant. You're probably the only engineer that they listen to over there, and it's likely because you support the cable difference theories.
Further, I don't ignore any evidence unless it is completely false. I simply weight the various bits of evidence using my engineering background and experience, my 25 years of listening to music, and maybe most importantly, on human behavioral tendencies.
The reason I became an engineer is because I like to ask the questions "why" and "how". And I am realizing more and more that some people simply don't want address these complex little words. |
| You missed it...Part II | Monstrous Mike
Nov 29, 2001 10:25 AM | | To summarize, I do not consider this case closed. I cannot unequivocally state that cables make no difference whatsoever. As a matter of fact, a case can be made, using physics and logic, that cables MUST sound different. The arguement is really to what degree is this difference and is it audible to anyone.
And I will state again that a null DBT is not proof of anything. It is merely a piece of evidence that must be weighed and put in the evidence locker.
As of right now, if I had a gun to my head, and the guy asked me if I thought he could identify different cables in a proper DBT, and said I would die if I answered incorrectly, I would answer NO.
That's how I have weighed all of the evidence I have in my evidence locker. And the locker is still open, so bring it on. |
| Just a question (well, 3) | Spiky
Nov 29, 2001 11:30 AM | | Is this issue completely torn down the same lines as liberal/conservative political viewpoints? From my reading it seems objectivist=liberal, subjectivist=conservative. Is this hypothesis correct? How about a vote? |
| I personally | Warren Warren
Nov 29, 2001 3:05 PM | | I personally voted for Ralph Nader! Does this mean I am liberal or conservative? |
| That essentially means you voted for George Bush (nt) | Markw*
Nov 30, 2001 7:35 AM | | |
| |
