SBGK wrote: > You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because > they have a different viewpoint ?
Archimago wrote: > Hmmmm.... Hold your horses there buddy in terms of bringing up the Regen > -yet again- and your presumptions about the "objectivist response". > > 1. Given unclear rationale for the need of this Regen device, scepticism > is warranted. The manufacturer provides no evidence of efficacy (we can > wait for jkeny's claim that UpTone is working on this). The theory > behind its operation appears unlikely to affect audio output. Therefore, > plenty to be suspicious about - as much as suspicion around the need for > $1000+ ethernet cables. > > 2. I have proposed a way to test objectively and subjectively with > sighted and unsighted subjects who are "more subjectivist" than myself > in the other thread regarding this Regen device. I'm waiting for jkeny > to see if he can arrange this device to send to me for evaluation. He > knows my address. I believe I've been more open-minded in this response > than subjectivists who "just believe" with no evidence of questioning > their own perceptual ability. > > Please then, I/we have asked you time and again to explain why you > believe in what you believe. Whether small buffers are better, or why OS > makes a difference. -You have not once discussed your method of > discerning differences- or how you reach the level of certainty in these > effects you openly speak of and criticize others for not having "faith" > in. > > Do you reach these conclusions with sighted listening? Do you do blinded > listening? What experiments have you done? Do you measure these changes > - if so please show us your results. > > Do not blame others of closed-mindedness until you speak of your methods > in ascertaining truth; because obviously your results are -very > different- from mine. I have laid my case on the blog and anyone is free > to verify or disprove. Feel free to refute with evidence and I will > happily listen. Finger pointing and insinuations I'm afraid have little > chance of convincing anyone, especially around here. Archimago wrote: > ... > > *-SBGK: Do not disappear here like you have so many times before when > challenged. If you are willing to accuse me of somehow poisoning the > thoughts of other; "duping" them as you say. Then stand your ground and > reason with me. I'm sure there are many subjectivists reading and I'm > sure they would appreciate hearing what you have to say. You likewise > have a blog so if it's something that needs room to explain, feel free > to direct us to your detailed post.-* SBGK. Let's get back on track if we can. Unless we have a discussion based on facts and knowing what methods are employed to ascertain belief, then we end up with an absolutely "fact-free" discussion which devolves into essentially opinion at best and name-calling at worst. Please, look at the posts quoted above; the original and follow-up request. I spent some time asking you specifically to provide explanations on how you attain your beliefs. Please discuss! Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=103950 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
