Mnyb wrote: 
> He he there is a milewide difference informally trying stuff vs telling
> the whole world that you know the "truth" of these things using these
> methods.
> 
> Like Raplphy put it ,as the clowns do it .
> 
> Another way to put it is that the error term in a TAS "tests" is
> magnitudes larger than the thing they try to test ;) you cant really say
> that they are "wrong" as their methodology it is simply so bad that it
> has almost no valid information in thier tests, they are more like "not
> right" .
> To be wrong is also to have some coherent opinion that can be tested :)
> how much is the veil lifted you say ? colourfull metaphors about things
> you imagined is actually off topic , the clown started in audio and have
> gone off tangent to something else ?
> 
> So informally feeling out things at home is not  inherently wrong and
> strange for this hobby , but the double whammy off .
> 
> 1. Believing that you superior unbiased mind can "hear" this difference
> in "megabuck cables etc" (if you can they are broken ) without a good
> test set-up and that this is the gospel .
> 
> 2. Spreading this unchecked "truth" everywhere in magazines or internet
> , se for example "6 moons" for another bunch of clowns .
> 
> So when going online and telling others about it ,doing a reality check
> is good .
> 
> I do try to remember  this quote "your are entitled to your own opinions
> but not your own facts" . Facts are a pesky things that can be checked
> by others and also change .

What you are saying is my biggest problem with the subjective side of
audio reviewing (you really can't call what they do "testing") which is
that mere opinions are taken to be facts. So jitter becomes this giant
problem because some reviewer states how much better asynchronous USB
than SPDIF - not by doing a carefully controlled double blind test but
he knows that it sounded better while listening to some musically vacant
but great sounding audiophile recording. CLOWNS

Now I have to come up a nice phrase for which CLOWNS is an acronym. I
have the end, With No Science, now I just need the C-L-O part. How about
Carefully Laid Obfuscation With No Science? Any other suggestions?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=97950

_______________________________________________
audiophiles mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles

Reply via email to