jh901 wrote:
Blind faith? ABX?
Look, I don't expect everyone to run out and drop a few grand on fancy
speaker cables just because I suggest that there's an appreciable
difference. At the same time, I mean, blind faith!? I have to ABX or
else it's blind faith?!
Not at all, but lets
jh901 wrote:
Do you have a reputation within hi-end audio?
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/
18302
I find it hard to believe that you've been able to contain yourself to
this tiny forum.
I haven't ;-)
BTW, who the heck are you, grasshopper? ;-)
jh901 wrote:
Is it ok if there are some who desire even better sound quality than
what you are happy with?
Of course. It's your money, and whatever makes you happy...
Do you see how you are relying on logical fallacy here?
No - I think you just don't understand the logic.
None of the
jh901 wrote:
Is it ok if there are some who desire even better sound quality than
what you are happy with?
Of course it is OK, but don't I get to ask by what means the claim that
better sound quality than what I are happy with even exists?
Inherently highly flawed sighted casual audiophile
jh901 wrote:
I have to ABX or else it's blind faith?!
Pretty much, yes - blind faith in the reliability and repeatability of
your ear-brain system as a measuring device.
OK, I am over-simplifying here, but when you hear an improvement as a
result of changing some gear, how do you actually
arnyk wrote:
I'm trying to buy, borrow, or steal a clue as to why JH901 has any
credentials that put him as far above the rest of us as he seems to
believe that he is. But it could be all moot.
I could be wrong, but methinks that Elvis has left the building... ;-)
Just 'Tweet'
arnyk or others- I reside close enough to Carnegie Mellon and Univ Of
Pittsburgh that perhaps one of you can help me track down someone
qualified to set up a proper experiment to objectively determine if I
can discern between my current speaker cable and a common copper cable
(zip cord or the
I for one am totally sick of this infantile bickering - just replying to
the thread title.
Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers
Logitech Radio
Logitech UE Smart Radio
Raspberry Pi + Squeezeplug LMS + Squeezelite
Cubieboard + Debian 7 + LMS 7.8.1 + Squeezelite -
jh901 wrote:
julf or any others with experience in foreground listening should be
able to express a relevant, subjective view of enjoying aspects of sound
quality on one audio system better (or not) than on another. Sure, this
doesn't mean that everyone is going to agree. What happens when
jh901 wrote:
You're ok with the doxxing though?
False claim. Whining about information that you intentionally put into
the public domain just makes you look immature and silly.
And the actual personal attacks that I'm getting?
Letsee, there was a rational discussion going on, you
arnyk wrote:
After watching you work over other participants on the grounds of their
credentials and worthiness to give advice, I figured that would be
something that you would understand.
Or, are there one set of rules for you, and another set for everybody
else?
While I think that your
jh901 wrote:
arnyk or others- I reside close enough to Carnegie Mellon and Univ Of
Pittsburgh that perhaps one of you can help me track down someone
qualified to set up a proper experiment to objectively determine if I
can discern between my current speaker cable and a common copper cable
jh901 wrote:
Member arnyk is indeed a legend, but I hadn't come across his wisdom
personally just yet. I can't comprehend what could drive a person and
others like him to such lengths. I'm not going to allow all of the joy
to be sucked out of life. There are no doubt passionate hobbyists
jh901 wrote:
Aren't you taking this how do I know what I know a little too far? I
have practical experience as an audiophile who simply wants to enjoy
listening to recorded music which is exceptionally reproduced. I'm not
making the sort of claims which warrant academic scrutiny.
This
jh901 wrote:
It's taken many, many years to get to the point where my system
currently is.
But ow have those years been spent? Purchasing gear recommended by
others?
I've built a pretty decent music collection, which grows by the week.
So have many of us, but I don't think any of the
Gandhi wrote:
The room eq seems to be in the form of an optional software package
which enables you to apply filtering. Thus I conclude that the
measurements must be made using other equipment. That takes a lot of
work and you need additional hardware as well as software. The filtering
part
arnyk wrote:
False claim. Whining about information that you intentionally put into
the public domain just makes you look immature and silly.
I don't claim to be putting info into public (on Twitter), but doxxing
can start by digging around for easy stuff and then escalating. I
haven't
jh901 wrote:
arnyk or others- I reside close enough to Carnegie Mellon and Univ Of
Pittsburgh that perhaps one of you can help me track down someone
qualified to set up a proper experiment to objectively determine if I
can discern between my current speaker cable and a common copper cable
pinkdot wrote:
Just 'Tweet' (https://twitter.com/jh901) him if you want to know :-)
You into Doxxing? Is that what we've come to? Over audio gear?
As for Ralph, well, he's out to win. I don't know what he's ever won
in the past five years here.
Arnyk has the makings of an internet
arnyk wrote:
Of course it is OK, but don't I get to ask by what means the claim that
better sound quality than what I are happy with even exists?
Inherently highly flawed sighted casual audiophile evaluations in a
untreated room using a random collection of audio gear assembled by a
Member arnyk is indeed a legend, but I hadn't come across his wisdom
personally just yet. I can't comprehend what could drive a person and
others like him to such lengths. I'm not going to suck all of the joy
out of life. There are no doubt passionate hobbyists of all sorts who
become, well, a
Julf wrote:
More than happy to - I have old friends at both places. Right now my
network connectivity is a bit spotty as I am travelling in Provence in
France, but as soon as I am back in Amsterdam with proper network
connectivity and spare time, I will contact suitable people - I am sure
A Garmin 800 ('https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into...prod69043.html'
(https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/into-sports/discontinued/edge-800/prod69043.html))
which works great. I highly recommend it if you do a lot of bicycle
riding.
No I'm not a cyclist, just a hiker/hill-bagger.
I recently
Julf wrote:
More than happy to - I have old friends at both places. Right now my
network connectivity is a bit spotty as I am travelling in Provence in
France, but as soon as I am back in Amsterdam with proper network
connectivity and spare time, I will contact suitable people - I am sure
rgro wrote:
Woohooo!!! Major applause for all concerned.
+1 - It's clearly time to clear the air and get things back on track.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign.
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 Linn sub
Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom
Anyway I haven't been posting much today because I was busy with my
other main hobby (besides music and audio) which is bicycling. Here's
where I rode today:
http://ridewithgps.com/routes/8695607
That's an incredibly accurate looking track you've recorded there, what
GPS unit did you use?
jh901 wrote:
I do hope that we can agree that there is some middle ground between
blind faith and measured, scientific certainty.
There are things that are quite probable, despite not being absolutely
verified. Then there are things that are extremely unlikely, and violate
known laws of
ralphpnj wrote:
The main reason that I was willing and able to make such a reasonable
post is that I felt that jh901 was attempting (quite successfully I
would say) to be reasonable and appeared to be truly puzzled at the
behavior of me and several other forum members. And I do agree
Julf wrote:
Pretty much, yes - blind faith in the reliability and repeatability of
your ear-brain system as a measuring device.
OK, I am over-simplifying here, but when you hear an improvement as a
result of changing some gear, how do you actually know it is not because
of being in a
arnyk wrote:
Not at all, but lets examine the quality of the source of information
that you seem to rely on.
Like just about all audiophiles you probably judge audio gear based on
casual sighted audiophile evaluations, and reviews based on casual
sighted evaluations.
Here are a few
jh901 wrote:
If I ever make a claim which defies the laws of physics, then I'd expect
to be corrected and I'd be happy to learn something. I don't see where
speaker cable comparison falls into that category, for example.
Rational skepticism is healthy.
Speaker cable comparison falls into
jh901 wrote:
You're ok with the doxxing though?
I don't know what your definition of doxing is, but imo pointing to a
social media account which is part of public information isn't.
-Logitech Media Server 7.9.0 ('LMS-Repack'
Julf wrote:
There are things that are quite probable, despite not being absolutely
verified. Then there are things that are extremely unlikely, and violate
known laws of physics. Accepting the later without any sort of actual
evidence would be extreme blind faith. Extraordinary claims
jh901 wrote:
What discussion did I lose?
Neither Science nor Relevance are exactly on your side at this point and
the preponderance of the personal attacks seem to be sourced with you.
arnyk's Profile:
jh901 wrote:
You into Doxxing? Is that what we've come to? Over audio gear?
As for Ralph, well, he's out to win. I don't know what he's ever won
in the past five years here.
Arnyk has the makings of an internet legend. Clearly borderline into
Doxxing too, which is just awesome. He
jh901 wrote:
Member arnyk is indeed a legend, but I hadn't come across his wisdom
personally just yet. I can't comprehend what could drive a person and
others like him to such lengths. I'm not going to allow all of the joy
to be sucked out of life. There are no doubt passionate hobbyists
Julf wrote:
Could we please try to do without all the personal attacks/insults?
Maybe we need our own version of Godwin's Law - when you have to resort
to personal attacks, you have already lost the discussion.
You're ok with the doxxing though? And the actual personal attacks that
I'm
jh901 wrote:
That's right and that's where experience comes into play. My listening
skills are nowhere close to extraordinary, but I've been doing it for
long enough that I know when I hear a dramatic change in one or more
aspects of fidelity.
Unfortunately that is a somewhat unscientific
jh901 wrote:
What discussion did I lose?
Good point - we are so far down the line of personal insults and attacks
that nobody remembers what the original point was (I guess the original
point of this particular thread was these horrible, rude rationalists
are offending my belief system by
Julf wrote:
That doesn't quite address my point. Assuming you are indeed familiar
with the sound of your own system, it still begs the question on knowing
if the difference caused by introducing a new, hitherto unfamiliar,
improvement actually makes a real, physical difference or not,
jh901 wrote:
I'm quite familiar with my own system and how it sounds.
That doesn't quite address my point. Assuming you are indeed familiar
with the sound of your own system, it still begs the question on knowing
if the difference caused by introducing a new, hitherto unfamiliar,
improvement
jh901 wrote:
Do you recommend the audio components in your primary system to others?
Yes but of course only the speakers affect the SQ to any degree.
Are you pleased with the sound?
Of course.
If these components are representative of the best achievable sound
quality in your
rgro wrote:
I don't think the fidelity or engaging sound of your system is really
the issue that julf is addressing. While I can't speak for him, I
suspect that he would, indeed, enjoy listening to your system. And not
only that, but I would also expect that an actual scientific listening
arnyk wrote:
Convince me that you are worthy of them!
Why does it even occur to you to say that? Here we are on an enthusiast
forum and I have to prove that I'm worthy of advice?
It's taken many, many years to get to the point where my system
currently is. I've built a pretty decent
hansiebrand wrote:
Room adjustment/equalization* 100 EQs, each with 16,000
frequency points
http://www.avantgarde-acoustic.de/zero1/_en/tech-specs.html
The room eq seems to be in the form of an optional software package
which enables you to apply filtering. Thus I conclude
jh901 wrote:
Aren't you taking this how do I know what I know a little too far? I
have practical experience as an audiophile who simply wants to enjoy
listening to recorded music which is exceptionally reproduced. I'm not
making the sort of claims which warrant academic scrutiny.
Julf wrote:
Unfortunately that is a somewhat unscientific thing to say. We are back
to Theory of Knowledge 101 - How do I know what I know?.
No, of course not - but if you are going to make claims, or challenge
statements by people who actually have not only the scientific and
jh901 wrote:
Why does it even occur to you to say that? Here we are on an enthusiast
forum and I have to prove that I'm worthy of advice?
After watching you work over other participants on the grounds of their
credentials and worthiness to give advice, I figured that would be
something
jh901 wrote:
Aren't you taking this how do I know what I know a little too far? I
have practical experience as an audiophile who simply wants to enjoy
listening to recorded music which is exceptionally reproduced. I'm not
making the sort of claims which warrant academic scrutiny.
I
49 matches
Mail list logo
