bonze wrote:
This might be a good time to remind everyone to remember to bring their
soldering iron guards to forthcoming meetings.
To quote one of my t-shirts: If it smells like chicken, you are holding
the wrong end.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
ralphpnj wrote:
...
No idea why you have been left out of our weekly meetings, I will send
you a PM with all the info about the next meeting of The Proudly
Objectivist Society (no anonymous business for us, we proudly wear our
objectivity right on our sleeves) meeting :)
Thanks for the
doctor_big wrote:
Please tell me there's a shrine with a late 70s Sansui amp at the
centre...
Shows Jason how out of touch you are with the actual lives of
objectivists. In the late 70s objectivists listened to Dynaco SS amps
and preamps that they soldered up themselves.
Sansui was always
ralphpnj wrote:
Arny - I'm (mostly) on your side but please lighten up once in a while.
Humor can be a good thing.
A continual stream of insults and lies doesn't strike me as humor. A lot
of it is about whose ox is getting gored.
SBGK wrote:
what to call an anti audiophile?
I think this is one of the most fundamental fallacies - so if you are
against pseudoscience, you are automatically anti-audiophile?
Does that make audiophiles a cult - unless you buy into our faith
system, you are against us?
Anyone who has such
RonM wrote:
What we have here is delusion -- delusion that is understood to be such
by the deluded, but still maintained. Self conscious delusion if you
will.
It seems to be maintained primarily by a certain amount of cognitive
dissonance -- I've invested all this money and time in
doctor_big wrote:
Go back and read my post again - at no point did I say that expensive
cables sound better. Only that I like having them in my system, and
that my system SEEMS to sound better. Just like wearing a nice suit
makes me feel more confident. The suit does nothing, but my
Archimago wrote:
A few points I need to make. First, there is no gang. Although a
number of objectivists are gathered here, as far as I am aware, it's
not like we chat behind the scenes about the postings and somehow have a
common view about everything! Well, if there is some kind of weekly
doctor_big wrote:
No buts, Arch. Of course, what you've stated is a given, and backs up
Ralphy-boy's explanation as to why he still owns the Simaudio stuff.
Fair is fair. However, your gang is forever harping about how
audiophile stuff specifically, totally doesn't at all sound any
Archimago wrote:
A few points I need to make. First, there is no gang. Although a
number of objectivists are gathered here, as far as I am aware, it's
not like we chat behind the scenes about the postings and somehow have a
common view about everything! Well, if there is some kind of weekly
doctor_big wrote:
Please tell me there's a shrine with a late 70s Sansui amp at the
centre...
I was always liked Sherwood receivers better. My Pioneer giant 5 way
bookshelf speakers with 15 woofers never sounded any good with Sansui
amps. Anyway it's a good old Heathkit receiver that sits
bonze wrote:
This might be a good time to remind everyone to remember to bring their
soldering iron guards to forthcoming meetings.
There have been a couple of 'incidents' involving stray hot irons and
Arnys wood-panelling :)
Please tell me there's a shrine with a late 70s Sansui amp at the
doctor_big wrote:
Again, thanks for the reasoned discourse. It's rare around here.
Jason, with all of your childish false claims and personal attacks, you
are clearly doing your part to suppress reasoned discussion.
ralphpnj wrote:
Archimago I have no idea why you have been left out of our weekly
meetings, I will send you a PM with all the info about the next meeting
of The Proudly Objectivist Society (no anonymous business for us, we
proudly wear our objectivity right on our sleeves) meeting :)This
RonM wrote:
The fact that there are some, such as the poster quoted above, who
persist in beliefs that at some level they know can't be true is a sad
reflection of broader social reality. Climate change denial, anyone?
Of course, on both the bigger (societal) and smaller (audiophile)
doctor_big wrote:
Arch,
Thanks for a well-thought-out, reasoned, sensible response. I agree
with almost all of what you've written. However, I do think there is in
fact an Objectivist's Guild, I'm sure you all wear the same garnet ring,
and you meet monthly in Arny's wood-paneled
Gandhi wrote:
Snoilers?
A good one!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
On topic.
Snoilers?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snoiled
Best Regards,
Gandhi
not often enough well recorded and mastered cds *|* dbpoweramp with
accuraterip *|* flac *|* fanless asrock z77e-itx intel i5-3570t *|*
ubuntu 12.04.1 lts 32-bit *|* lms 7.8.0 *|* brutefirdrc
Julf wrote:
A good one!
what to call an anti audiophile ?
Arny's barmy army ?
Anyone who has such an absolute claim on science just doesn't know how
much he doesn't know. A common trait amongst eejits.
Just noticed the quality posters have abandoned this forum, wonder why.
Touch
SBGK wrote:
what to call an anti audiophile ?
I got it: someone likes listening to music played back on a well
designed, sensibly engineered, properly manufactured and cost effective
audio system without having swallowed hook, line and sinker all those
commonly held but scientifically unsound
ralphpnj wrote:
Fair question, which I've answered before: the Sim Audio equipment was
purchased used over 10 years ago when I was in my audiophile phase. The
Sim Audio equipment is well engineered and built and has the full
support of the manufacturer. Since I already own the equipment and
doctor_big wrote:
Ok then. Serious question - do you think you could tell the difference
in a blind ABX test between the Simaudio gear and - oh I don't know - a
Yamaha receiver? Given that the receiver has enough power to drive your
speakers, and given that the receiver is adequate to
doctor_big wrote:
Hey Ralphy-baby, sez down there in your sig line that you use a Simaudio
pre-power combo. That's mighty high-rent gear you've got there! Could
you fill us in on how come you're using something so expensive and
audiophile-like when good old ABX testing would likely PROVE
Archimago wrote:
But Jason, although Raph has already answered quite well already, I
actually don't see what's wrong with owning whatever one desires... Give
that this is the audiophile forum, many of the objectivists have main
systems in the 5-figures because there's nothing wrong with
Backl to Pilippe's original point - an inexpensive tube integrated amp
can be an exceptionally nice audio diversion. It's extremely nice at
the end of a long day to sit back with the lights out and watch the
tubes glowing happily away. The sound is generally softer, more
relaxed, more
Backl to Pilippe's original point - an inexpensive tube integrated amp
can be an exceptionally nice audio diversion. It's extremely nice at
the end of a long day to sit back with the lights out and watch the
tubes glowing happily away. The sound is generally softer, more
relaxed, more
SBGK wrote:
Anyone who has such an absolute claim on science just doesn't know how
much he doesn't know.
Nope, no idea what you are blathering about - nothing unusual there
though
SBGK wrote:
Just noticed the quality posters have abandoned this forum, wonder why.
All the top quality ones
ralphpnj wrote:
I got it: someone likes listening to music played back on a well
designed, sensibly engineered, properly manufactured and cost effective
audio system without having swallowed hook, line and sinker all those
commonly held but scientifically unsound and unproven audiophile
ralphpnj wrote:
Another fair question. My feelings on the analog side of things, and
power amps do fall on the analog side of things, are much less
dogmatic' than they are on the digital side of things and so, as you
said, there are many factors which need to be accounted for when running
SBGK wrote:
what to call an anti audiophile ?
Arny's barmy army ?
One knows that he is dealing with people who are hopelessly insecure and
immature when we find that they can't say anything without making a
personal attack.
Anyone who has such an absolute claim on science just
doctor_big wrote:
The neat part about this sighted test is that there's no way in hell
you'd have any sort of expectation bias for any result other than the
same null you'd get from that ABX test.
That is not really how it works. We don't control all our biases, and we
are usually not aware
I guess the day Phil Leigh decided to stop posting here a quality poster
left. Others? Not so much.
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer SPK240 - self-made speakers
Wombat's
doctor_big wrote:
Hey Ralphy-baby, sez down there in your sig line that you use a Simaudio
pre-power combo. That's mighty high-rent gear you've got there! Could
you fill us in on how come you're using something so expensive and
audiophile-like when good old ABX testing would likely PROVE
bonze wrote:
All the top quality ones are still here :confused:
Thanks bonze :confused:
kidstypike
1 x SB3 - 1 x Boom - 1 x (Squeezebox) Radio - 2 x Touch - 2 x
piCorePlayer
kidstypike's Profile:
doctor_big wrote:
No buts, Arch. Of course, what you've stated is a given, and backs up
Ralphy-boy's explanation as to why he still owns the Simaudio stuff.
Fair is fair. However, your gang is forever harping about how
audiophile stuff specifically, totally doesn't at all sound any
doctor_big wrote:
A point - I like nice, thick, well-made cables, ones that cost a lot of
money (which I can afford). I liken it to putting proper P0 tires on my
Maserati. Would General tires from Green and Ross do just as well for
way less money? Probably. Would I notice a difference?
arnyk wrote:
It would appear to be the prerequisite radical subjectivist personal
attack...
...Jkeny lives in a logic-tight box...
Next!
Gentlemen,
I have been using this forum for a good few years now.
There are, as you will have noticed, a mix of subjectivists,
objectivists, and
jkeny wrote:
And Julf is still doing well on the troll table - unless Arny turns up
soon, I can see Julf's name being engraved on the Troll Trophy.
And I guess the voting/tabulating is actually for real on a certain
Irish forum... :)
I hope you, sbgk and a couple of others realize it is
jkeny wrote:
And Julf is still doing well on the troll table - unless Arny turns up
soon, I can see Julf's name being engraved on the Troll Trophy.
It would appear to be the prerequisite radical subjectivist personal
attack.
I can sit here all day, and have sat here all day asking jkeny
artee wrote:
The questions that I would like to ask each of you are:
1.Do you think that those posts add value to the forum?
2.Are you proud of your posts?
Cheers,
Rick
It's just banter between two esteemed individuals arguing about
something that can never be proved on an
arnyk wrote:
This is one of the big golden ear lies - that all truth is relative and
nothing can be proven.
I could not agree more.
Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign.
sub
Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 Linn sub
Computer Rm:
SBGK wrote:
Quote Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
This is one of the big golden ear lies - that all truth is relative and
nothing can be proven.
Very good, pity you made up that meaning out of my sentence.
I said arguing about something that can't be proved on an online
forum.
SBGK wrote:
You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
they have a different viewpoint ?
I think you might want to go back and look at the messages, and see who
it is who attacks people who disagree with them.
Pointing out factually false statements is not the
SBGK wrote:
prove it
You've done it for me many times, just lately with that post of yours
that I replied to.
There's a reason why you don't say much of substance, instead reply with
personal attacks and glib posts like this one - you can't provide a
well-written, well-reasoned counter
You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
they have a different viewpoint ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile:
artee wrote:
Gentlemen,
The questions that I would like to ask each of you are:
1.Do you think that those posts add value to the forum?
Get serious! I post all of this prose on public forums because I'm
ashamed of it? LOL! What do you know of value about human nature?
Apparently
Julf wrote:
And I guess the voting/tabulating is actually for real on a certain
Irish forum... :)
That is seriously embarrassing :)
Julf wrote:
I hope you, sbgk and a couple of others realize it is readable and
searchable by anybody, not just the members...
But he always acts on his own?
SBGK wrote:
You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
they have a different viewpoint ?
Just another restatement of the audiophile idea you're trying to
distance yourself from..
This isn't about merely different viewpoints. It is about truth versus
self-serving
toby10 wrote:
For which he and his completely bogus un-scientific study was
resoundingly refuted and discredited.
Exactly. Refuted and discredited based on facts and evidence - not
rhetoric, personal attacks and subjective anecdotes.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
doctor_big wrote:
I've seen the tests you perform where you set up two utterly different
systems - one lo-fi, one upper-mid-fi, and abx them behind a screen. You
trot out a bunch of audiophiles who are utterly wamboozled and unable to
differentiate which one is X.
Not sure what test you are
artee wrote:
The questions that I would like to ask each of you are:
1.Do you think that those posts add value to the forum?
2.Are you proud of your posts?
Cheers,
Rick
Rick, you should also have noticed that I have stopped replying to ArnyK
for about a week so this
doctor_big wrote:
last word - I promise (myself). Just because you have a background
in science doesn't mean you aren't agenda driven or biased. Wakefield
was a scientist, right? Remember him? The autism/MMR guy? A
background in science doesn't grant you a free pass.
For which he
SBGK wrote:
You guys have lost the plot, why are you attacking someone just because
they have a different viewpoint ?
Archimago wrote:
H Hold your horses there buddy in terms of bringing up the Regen
-yet again- and your presumptions about the objectivist response.
1. Given
jkeny wrote:
Rick, you should also have noticed that I have stopped replying to ArnyK
for about a week
Jkeny's abject cowardice and utter denial of reality should be more
conspicuous. I guess he can hide behind the fact that nobody really
cares that much what he does.
Can't blame him for
bonze wrote:
and yet
Ah, it's cute that you pay so much attention to me - I'm flattered
jkeny's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35192
View this thread:
jkeny wrote:
Rick, you should also have noticed that I have stopped replying to ArnyK
for about a week so this relieves you from seeing any exchange with
ArnyK on my side?
and yet
jkeny wrote:
I see the race of the trolls has begun - ralphpnj was quick off the
blocks but seems to
arnyk wrote:
Jkeny's abject cowardice and utter denial of reality should be more
conspicuous. I guess he can hide behind the fact that nobody really
cares that much what he does.
Can't blame him for not wanting to be called up short for his
anti-scientific claims and self-serving
SBGK wrote:
you obviously do, sweetheart.
Don't feed the troll, Gordon - that's what I did - he will get fed up
with the lack of attention go elsewhere for it.
jkeny's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
This is one of the big golden ear lies - that all truth is relative and
nothing can be proven.
prove it
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile:
arnyk wrote:
You've done it for me many times, just lately with that post of yours
that I replied to.
That's the clear meaning of the following false claim:
It's just banter between two esteemed individuals arguing about
something that can never be proved on an online forum.
The
Julf wrote:
I think you might want to go back and look at the messages, and see who
it is who attacks people who disagree with them.
Given the high percentage of the posts of your correspondent that are
100% personal attacks, I don't expect his recognition of the truth you
state to be easy
jkeny wrote:
Don't feed the troll, Gordon - that's what I did - he will get fed up
with the lack of attention go elsewhere for it.
Yum! Yum!
It's clear I'm keeping you up nights, darlin'
arnyk's Profile:
jkeny wrote:
Ah, it's cute that you pay so much attention to me - I'm flatteredWell you're
always so amusing, especially when you whine and get your
little panties bunched.
I found yesterdays flounce particularly hilarious.
Do keep it up!
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x
Julf wrote:
I guess for the same reason he carefully avoids answering my questions
as well...
Right, jkeny only answers questions that feed his ego and agenda. and
that don't expose his ignorance.
arnyk's Profile:
SBGK wrote:
you obviously do, sweetheart.
SBGK: Why do you continue to ignore my questions?
If I may remind you of your comments:
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits
18385
+---+
|Filename: Fonzie_jumps_the_shark.PNG |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18385|
+---+
Archimago wrote:
SBGK: Why do you continue to ignore my questions?
I guess for the same reason he carefully avoids answering my questions
as well...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
darrenyeats wrote:
Are you referring to my post here
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?103842-Is-anybody-sick-of-the-recent-spate-of-threadsp=823638viewfull=1#post823638?
If so, I think what I wrote is very different to how you've understood
it.
You're right and I apologize - I
Julf wrote:
And then there are those of us who just enjoy great sound without
pretentious audiophile snake oil. I guess that makes us second class
citizens.
The phrase that comes to mind is: Music Lover.
arnyk's
SBGK wrote:
So these people have pretensions of being an audiophile and think they
are getting it from a $300 device.
And then there are those of us who just enjoy great sound without
pretentious audiophile snake oil. I guess that makes us second class
citizens.
It's also fun just to see
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits and abx is
incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
sound/measure the same.
So these people have
Julf wrote:
The best terms I can think of are astrotroll for those with a
commercial agenda, and cosmotroll for those with a purely ideological,
non-commercial agenda, but I would love to hear suggestions for terms
better describing these behaviours.
I think placebophile works.
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi thousand $ systems because they've been told bits are
bits and abx is
incapable of discerning a difference and Archimago says they all
sound/measure the same.
So these people have
SBGK wrote:
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox
So you aren't using a squeezebox?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
bonze wrote:
So you don't think anyone should have a Touch in their system?
Well done, you've just proved his point.
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK wrote:
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
Noise without relevant content seems to describe most of your posts. Why
don't you take your own advice?
arnyk's Profile:
Julf wrote:
So you aren't using a squeezebox?
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
Touch optimisations http://touchsgotrythm.blogspot.co.uk/
SBGK's Profile:
SBGK wrote:
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
That's called a deflection.
You've already ripped a few people new terminations for their digestive
systems for not having a SB, and now you've done a similar job on
everybody else
doctor_big wrote:
I've got nothing to say to you, troll. You don't own a Squeezebox and
have nothing constructive to add here. You're the first member of my
ignore list.
Jason
Ah, the Ostrich defense.
18377
I win!
+---+
But the original topic of the tread was not about garden variety
audiophiles ?
But the idea of a person always argue for misconceptions and popular
audiophile beliefs not only because ( or not at all ) personal beliefs ,
but to the prepare the ground .
Example if you sell expensive cables ,
Seems like some want to define audiophile stuff as everything that does
not work in audio .( like alternative medicine is all stuff that does
not really work in medicin ) .
What I would love is to see the debate go over to stuff that really
matters instead of wasting time at dead ends . And that
ralphpnj wrote:
Pray tell - what would any self respecting audiophile be doing on the
Slimdevices forum?
So again I ask: what would any self respecting audiophile be doing on
the Slimdevices forum?
some misguided people have been duped into using the squeezebox as a
front end to multi
doctor_big wrote:
Philippe, you're a huge contributor to this ecosystem and for that you
have my utmost respect. And I think you definitely get what I'm trying
to say. I too am saddened by Jkeny's and Arny's relentless squabbles,
although I am rooting for JK to come out on top as at least
jkeny wrote:
I'll PM Archimago about the Regen test - it makes no sense for this to
be where the details of that test the results are published as it will
only attract more troll infestation shit - not worth bothering with or
taking up any time on.
Does that mean that you a) are backing
philippe_44 wrote:
Point taken, but although not being involved in these flame wars, I
recently had to see them through the invasion of the what's new
timeline that was eaten up by the audiophile sub-forum.
I think what is making the people with a scientific background (over)
reacting is
ralphpnj wrote:
Jason, I'm confused as to why you single me out. Many of my posts simply
try to point out how and why audiophiles are being duped, which I blame
on the experts - whether they be audiophile writers, editors or
manufacturers (and their marketing and advertising departments).
Archimago wrote:
Yes good point.
*-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
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
doctor_big wrote:
Further, you (and this could be the royal -you-) harp on about
established science, as if you're a -scientist!-
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is
applied science - that is what audio is.
But you take this one little corner - ABX etc -
SBGK wrote:
The empty vessel makes the most noise.
To your golden ears maybe.
LMS Version: 7.9
TranquilPC T2-WHS-A3 - WHS 2011
2x Touch, 3x SB3
bonze's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6150
View
SBGK wrote:
See, you've quoted it out of context, well done. Which no tactic is that
from the troll manual ?
OK, I'll ask a direct question. Are you currently using a squeezebox,
and if so, for what, and so you feel that the sound quality of the
squeezebox is inadequate?
To try to judge
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
Julf wrote:
Because some of us are. Even more of us are engineers. Engineering is
applied science - that is what audio is.
But that is exactly what subjectivists seem to miss - we have done
exactly that. There are pretty well understood and verified scientific
explanations as to why
Julf wrote:
So I guess that means b) want to restrict the distribution of the
results.
I guess your preference would be a certain obscure Irish hifi forum? :)
Don't be such an idiot - I want to restrict having to deal with the
idiocy that your post is a perfect example of rife on this
jkeny wrote:
Don't be such an idiot - I want to restrict having to deal with the
idiocy trolling that your post is a perfect example of rife on this
forum section.
Idiot calling count rises to 3 persons.
Transporter (modded) - RG142 - Avantgarde Acoustic based 500VA
monoblocks - Sommer
ralphpnj wrote:
Why is that in every field of science and technology objective research
is welcomed and given the utmost respect but in audio (by audio I am
referring to the use of technology to reproduce sound and music) the
objective approach is considered (at least by you) as irrational?
jkeny wrote:
I'm still trying to organise the test but not on this forum - as this
section is unmoderated populated by trolls - an example being the
immediately posted bullshit from ralphpnj - complete waste of time
I don't get it. The test was never meant to be done on this forum.
Archimago
I see the race of the trolls has begun - ralphpjn was quick off the
blocks but seems to have faded as the race went on, Julf has put in a
strong performance shows stamina but Wombat is a late entry could
yet pass the finish line first. But wait what has happened to the the
champion troll,
doctor_big wrote:
For crying out loud, why is YOUR so-called objective approach the right
one? who made you the arbiter of science?
Nobody. Feel free to refute any of his claims based on factual evidence.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing
Julf wrote:
I don't think we have an issue with that - what we have an issue with is
someone who sells knives and his friend who has come up with a badly
working sharpening stone walking into a cooking forum claiming cutlery
makes a major difference to the taste of food, and how the usual
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
