Jeff07971 wrote:
> Oh No No NO !!!
>
> You have to galvanically isolate it and power the device itself from a
> linear psu !
>
> Otherwise you won't hear any difference !
I guess we better stop - somebody might think we are actually serious...
"To try to judge the real from the false will
darrenyeats wrote:
> utgg, do you know where and how could one invoke this function?
> >
Code:
> >
> --provide hook for applets to modify the gain curve
> function overrideDefaultVolumeToGain(self, value)
> _defaultVolumeToGain = value
> end
>
Mnyb wrote:
> A guess 80-90 volume is ok for the best recordings ever made?
Pretty much, yes. So far I haven't come across a single recording going
beyond 90 dB or so.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will
darrenyeats wrote:
> BTW I'd avoid above 90 in any event to give my DAC DSP headroom for
> upsampling/ASRC.
So you suspect your DAC hasn't been designed with enough headroom?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
sckramer wrote:
> Almost want to try & set up a good stereo mic to try & catch the
> difference, even thru video-- I keep the touch around as reference / a
> controller & at my computer desk now
>
If you are prepared to go through that effort, how about also measuring
the difference?
"To
sckramer wrote:
> Yeah no, I'll invite you over, your ears can tell :D don't have that
> kind of measuring equipment.
All you need is a computer with a halfway decent sound card.
> The 5V supply however *does*
A linear supply only makes sense if you can feed the analog stages and
the computer
sckramer wrote:
> Well, the spdif square wave, is an analog signal
Have you measured the difference in jitter or noise?
"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
sckramer wrote:
> There are no analog stages
Ah, should have re-read the thread. Was assuming that there had to be at
least a DAC involved, otherwise a linear +5V supply makes no sense.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
darrenyeats wrote:
> Julf, for me the money shot is here:
> http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1990168=11
>
> It is far from a single cycle in the example given. It's a macro-effect
> easily seen even at whole-track scale. It also happens to be one of my
>
sckramer wrote:
> The fact that it sounds better (and not in a "I just bought some audio
> jewelry, it must sound better :D) --> compels be to like to be able to.
>
Would love to see your double-blind ABX logs... :)
> I'm researching how good an oscilloscope I should get... (of course I'm
>
sckramer wrote:
> To prove if noise is effecting the digital, you'd need to compare 2
> signals & look for bit errors, or differences (and depending on where
> the bit error happens in the "16-bit" binary word... can translate to
> big audio blip, or nothing at all)
>
> ..then on top of that
sckramer wrote:
> What's the soundcard/software you use?
For general measurements (speakers etc.) I use a cheap Behringer UCA202,
but it is only 16 bit/48 kHz, so somewhat limited. For high-frequency
stuff I use a 'redpitaya' (http://redpitaya.com/), and for high-SNR
stuff I have been using an
Mnyb wrote:
> Yea but is it ? that would be something for audiorags to actually test?
If they actually cared about real differences - but that would scare
away advertisers. Remember it is the advertisers, not the subscribers,
that pay for the audiorags.
> But imho stuff should have healthy
sckramer wrote:
> So are you asking me to prove to myself I'm not hearing anything?
I am asking you to verify 1) that the things you are hearing correspond
to objective differences, and 2) if so, what kind of differences.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
d6jg wrote:
> I think you will find that the UCA202 is 16/44.1 not 16/48.
The hardware is capable of 32, 44.1 and 48 kHz. Perhaps the drivers for
your OS limit it to 44.1, but I have not had any issues with 48 kHz
under linux.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Mnyb wrote:
> Funny enough i suspect a phone can best many DAC's in this regards as
> they seems to have some really cool DSP onboard (in fact i think my
> phone beats my first DAC in every other aspect as well ... )
Indeed. Many of the more advanced DACs have pretty good DSP capabilities
these
garym wrote:
> Looks like it doesn't even have built in DAC. So you'd pay $6500 for
> essentially the same thing you get with a $50 garage sale PC with free
> Vortexbox installed? Both would produce bitperfect output to a USB DAC
> into your stereo.
But everybody knows it sounds better when
Archimago wrote:
> Yes. Pseudoscience can only grow and perpetuate when faith can be
> maintained.
And...
19172
+---+
|Filename: cragn151107.jpg |
|Download:
d6jg wrote:
> The UCA202 is a great value for money device. I use one to "rip" my
> vinyl to FLAC.
Indeed - 16/48 is perfect for vinyl.
"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
Archimago wrote:
> For my part, I try to get my kids involved every time I open up a device
> so it's not all literally that "magic" black box.
Yes, that is definitely a good thing to do. But... Back when I was a kid
(when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and communicated by morse code), there
were
SBGK wrote:
> At least the regen has some relevance to a lot of peoples experience of
> digital music and has changed perceptions that digital doesn't need to
> sound second rate.
While the rest of the world had realized that long ago...
"To try to judge the real from the false will always
Archimago wrote:
> Although perhaps early days, I believe and hope that what we're
> witnessing are hints of a change in the audiophile hobby for the better.
We said that in the 80's too :)
There will always be people who want to believe - be it homeopatic
"medicine", tha dangers of vaccines,
Archimago wrote:
> Sure... You could be right. However, have a gander at the average age at
> these audiophile shows. I do have hope that as the Baby Boomers fade out
> and the Gen-X'ers take over the hobby, we'll bring with it a new kind of
> sensibility - born of geeks raised on sites like
SBGK wrote:
> Still, I'm reminded of Kevin Keegan's rant at Alex Ferguson when I read
> the comments about regen in this thread, it's definitely the
> objectivists who are getting emotionally fraught.
So any reaction to snake oil merchants being caught lying is being
"emotionally fraught". Yes,
sckramer wrote:
> I prefer feeding the client PCM (WAV) only, for all file types, even for
> mp3, then the CPU is practically idle, it just has to read it out to the
> PCM->i2s chip
It might minimize userspace CPU load, but it increases I/O load due to
having to transfer and load double the
netchord wrote:
> i did a little comparison on one track, and felt there was a small, but
> subtle difference...
Sounds like it was a sighted comparison - you knew which file was which,
right?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
SBGK wrote:
> So sad. Where did it all go wrong for the regen folks, 2500 sales and
> now they'll probably have to return all the money as people realise the
> measurements prove they are hearing imaginary improvements.
That is the beauty of snake oil - you are trading on faith and
gullibility,
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Those are not 'small' task at all, so cpu load is decresed by almost 70%
> in the server and by 50% on the client.
Is that user-mode CPU, or does it also include time spent in the kernel
and device drivers?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
marcoc1712 wrote:
> That's not comparable, have you tried?
Yes, and I think I reported my results earlier.
"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
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I Already know you are going to say this is a too naife way to take
> measures, but You could measure only the encodind and decoding in flac
> of an Hirez flac file and get an Idea of what are you saving here.
Well, you knew I was going to say it, but I will still say it
ralphpnj wrote:
> Would someone please be kind enough to explain to me is a clear and
> concise matter how the server CPU load can possibly have any effect on
> the sound quality of any Squeezebox player, considering that the player
> is playing back the file from a buffer?
I think marcoc1712
netchord wrote:
> yes, but see my earlier posts where i stated AIF sounded superior to
> APL, so if anything the result is contrary to my previously stated bias.
It is not contrary to a (potential) bias towards the existence of a
difference. What you are saying is basically "I saw a black
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I've just reported both...
Indeed. And the total cpu numbers might actually give a reasonable
picture. What tool did you use to get the numbers? Top?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
SBGK wrote:
> Are you saying uptone are lying snake oil merchants ?
I was referring to this:
Julf wrote:
> "The person that I spoke to told me that the owner of the company
> confided in him that he simply lies about the sonic improvements and his
> ability to hear the diffe
Pascal Hibon wrote:
> To be honest, I only follow a couple of threads over there. The main
> thread I follow is the one on JohnW's new DAC (the new M-DAC); but just
> out of curiosity. I stumbled upon the Jitterbug / Regen thread by
> accident. Funny how the manufacturer of one of those devices
Pascal Hibon wrote:
> Very funny. John Westlake has posted a reply on pink fish media about
> the jitterbug. He wanted to do some measurements on it and it turns out
> that the jitterbug drops the 5 volt supply too much for the bus powered
> DAC to operate. Wasn't the jitterbug trying to clean
This morning's ornithological observation: seagulls. Make a lot of
noise, enjoy shifting garbage, shit all over the place, and fly away
when confronted.
"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
wortgefecht wrote:
> Who cares about cassettes 'now that one can buy this'
> (http://www.musicstore.revox.com/index.php?lang=en)? :cool:
Ah, yes. Because we all know analog is good and digital is bad. But I
guess my problem is the same as my problem with vinyl - as I know each
time I play it
wortgefecht wrote:
> Ah, since when is "serious collecting" about actually using it?
> :rolleyes:
Good point :)
"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" -
And incidentally Paul McGowan of PS Audio just praised the jitterbug,
purely based on subjective listening. :)
'Paul's Post: Jitterbugging/'
(http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/jitterbugging/)
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
jkeny wrote:
> Oh, I see - John Westlake is a very well known audio designer & E'ee
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Westlake
Even the Pope is fallible...
> I had similar thoughts about USB cables - lots of people reporting
> audible differences with different cables - the ones I tried,
jkeny wrote:
> Funny you equate a belief system to a measurements system :)
That is all in your interpretation. Replace "Even the Pope" with
"Everyone" if that works better for you.
> I didn't
I thought the discussion was about hearing differences that can't be
measured. So unless you
jkeny wrote:
> I'm not interested in the trivial arguments
Really? Actions speak louder than words... :)
"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
jkeny wrote:
> Well as a measureist/objectivist you should have no problem with the
> 8KHz & harmonics spikes
What I do have (and as myself, not as any -ist label you might want to
try to stick on me) I have a problem with you suggesting added noise,
albeit inaudible, is proof of the
SBGK wrote:
> Are you saying uptone are lying snake oil merchants ?
With regards to uptone, all I am saying is that I would love to see
actual evidence to support the claims.
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
jkeny wrote:
> Amir, BE718 insist that DAC analogue output is the only place to do
> measurements & have shown higher amplitude 8KHz spikes (& their
> harmonics). This is exactly what is to be expected when the jitter of
> the USB frames & microframes is reduced. Microframe timing of 125uS
>
jkeny wrote:
> Already answered, no need to flog it to death.
Indeed. Considering it was dead in the water from the start, any
flogging would be over the top.
"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
Wombat wrote:
> All of this is has a lower chance to alter the sound as some minimum
> phase upsampling.
Good point.
"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"
jkeny wrote:
> Sure, but your characterising it as noise is disingenuous - it's a
> hint/trace of what's happening at the USB receiver - if you understand
> how USB high-speed protocol works & you understand LIM, you can
> understand this.
I guess using the proper technical term is disingenuous
cliveb wrote:
But you're like a pit-bull who just won't let go. And by keeping the
argument going with people who cannot be reasoned with, you and your
opponents degrade the S/N ratio of a forum.
So what you are advocating is to let those who cannot be reasoned with
have the last word
Mnyb wrote:
But if I in a car forum claimed that my Corvette had 9 billion
horsepowers , I would probably be called upon that BS .
Or that a magnet in the fuel line increases power by 60%.
In audio forums we are suposed to accept claims that are even more
unreasonable ?
Yes, it is audio,
cliveb wrote:
The evidence is before our eyes. Since Arny joined this forum, the
crazies have got more and more vocal, and my hypothesis is that they
have done so precisely because Arny has engaged with them.
That is one hypothesis, and you might be right, or you might not. Hard
to tell what
jh901,
Did you get my PM asking for an email address to forward to my contacts?
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
darrenyeats wrote:
Usually I do sighted first and let those impressions direct my blind
listening, this has been more effective than just going blind.
I am curious about what that means - in what way do you direct your
blind listening, while keeping it blind?
To try to judge the real from
jkeny wrote:
It doesn't give anyone great hope that these home administered blind
tests are in any way useful at discerning differences, does it?
No, they are indeed pretty useless, just like home administered sighted
tests. So would you have any results of carefully controlled (according
to
SBGK wrote:
you keep hawking abx testing as being the gold standard, but as far as I
can see it is totally irrelevent to anyone actually listening for
changes. It's only used by objectivists who always claim to never have
heard a difference, so what sort of endorsement is that ?
JK, I notice that you conveniently (as so often seems to be the case)
avoided answering my questions:
Julf wrote:
So, just to clarify, you simply pointed out that there happens to be
some favourable listening reports? You don't in any way support the
assumption that the Regen would actually
Archimago wrote:
Results out!
'Part I: RESULTS'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling.html)
'Part II: ANALYSIS CONCLUSIONS'
(http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2015/07/the-linear-vs-minimum-phase-upsampling_10.html)
Thanks to all who participated.
jkeny wrote:
A more music-like test signal with a more realistic crest factor.
And you think the crest factor will make a difference? I hope you
realize that the easiest way to increase the crest factor is to
amplitude modulate (or convolve) the sine wave with a low-frequency
square wave. It
bonze wrote:
Oh I'm not worried about your little business, never said I was.
And now it's obvious that you aren't either :)
I think we are making the mistake of assuming jkeny is targeting a
reasonable audience. The target audience for products like his will
always be true believers, and
jh901 wrote:
False, generally. You hang your hat on the laws of physics, misapplied
or misunderstood, to discredit any product which doesn't fit your
world-view.
So what mechanism, compatible with physics, electrical engineering
science and information theory, would you suggest as an
jh901 wrote:
You wouldn't even trust your own sensory perception because science.
We trust it to tell us what we subjectively prefer, but science (and
experience) has thought us not to trust it as an absolute, repeatable
reference.
Any number of you have found the secret sauce necessary to
philippe_44 wrote:
Guys - As I tried to say before, this discussion is killing the what's
new feature of this forum. Would you agree that each camp knows that it
will not convince the other side, even after billions of messages? I
understand that both camp want to make sure that 'uneducated'
jkeny wrote:
Julf, I didn't answer it as it is a silly question.
Of course it is a silly question - because you can't answer it without
appearing silly. So of course you won't.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity
jkeny wrote:
The question has no meaning
I think we disagree on that one.
would addressing it change the fact that home administered blind tests
are worthless - something you agree with, btw?
And you accuse others of deflecting inconvenient questions?
It does show that you try to
jkeny wrote:
What measuring technique do you propose should be used to find this
fluctuation in the analogue waveform?
I'll give you a hint: Most standard methods involve one or more test
signals that are then removed from the output signal - what remains is
noise/distortion.
To try to
SBGK wrote:
a pity the self proclaimed upholders of science can't put in some
original research to understand why their measurements don't match the
effects on sound that people report hearing.
We would love to hear about your research results.
To try to judge the real from the false will
jkeny wrote:
Now, a simple test signal, like a sine wave will not cause the dynamic
situation necessary to invoke the fluctuating noise floor in the device
- what do you suggest?
Depends on your signal. What test signal do you suggest would cause the
necessary dynamic situation?
To try
It has become clear from some of the threads here that we need a new
term to describe a certain behaviour, where someone engages in something
resembling trolling (sowing discord on the Internet by starting
arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or
off-topic messages
jkeny wrote:
And why would you think it won't?
Why do you think it will?
Didn't I say more music-like, which implies not just realistic crest
factors but multi-tone signals as well. Notch filtering becomes a bit
more difficult but probably not impossible. Now that you have figured it
out
SBGK wrote:
and if the market is always right then the abx objectivists are
increasingly like the loon shouting the world is going to end while the
likes of jplay, regen, cable manufacturers etc walk away with the
spoils.
Nah, I guess that is just a sign of how the whole high-end hobby has
cliveb wrote:
A flame war only starts when someone calls BS and is then prepared to
slug it out for an interminable time. It only needs one rational person
to get reeled in and keep on arguing for things to get out of hand. And
we have recently acquired such a person on this forum. He knows
ralphpnj wrote:
So my question is this: when one is at a concert the sound is often
quite good - well balanced and crystal clear with nice high end and good
but not over powering bass, however many audience recordings, even those
made using top quality microphones and equipment located in a
jkeny wrote:
Anyway, remind me what claims made on this thread need support?
Let's start with this:
jkeny wrote:
BTW, it's a fact that there is a large body of favourable listening
reports regarding the Regen!
Could you please post links to listening results satisfying the criteria
you
Mnyb wrote:
Wonder how distortion in speakers is going to be diminished in the
future ? They all distorts quite audible on realistic levels .
Genelec has done some interesting work on 3-way active concentric
speakers to reduce intermodulation distortion.
To try to judge the real from the
jkeny wrote:
You seem to confuse what are facts - I'll re-quote what I posted BTW,
it's a fact that there is a large body of favourable listening reports
regarding the Regen!
You are asking for something completely different to what I stated as a
fact!
Heh, I didn't think even you would
jkeny wrote:
[/B]If you don't understand the engineering concepts underlying the
operation of the Regen, why do you try to measure it with
pseudo-measurements?
I'm pointing out the damage that you do by taking this approach if you
really are interested in finding truth in audio, you would
Gandhi wrote:
I don't know, but a quote comes to mind.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.
Mark Twain
You have a point.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
jkeny wrote:
Hey don't thank me yet as I suspect that Archi's measurements will show
nothing.
Not that there are any preconceived notions here... :)
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:
> Dither is still the correct way to do volume control ...!
It is not always the correct way. Dither adds noise. It should only be
used under the right conditions, when we know the added noise is a
smaller degradation than the truncation noise.
> I have no confidence that
I am sure this would have applications in audio too.
'Free Energy Over-unity Charging Circuit'
(https://youtu.be/VOAaFyv_shY)
Please watch to the end, or skip to 6:20 after watching at least the
beginning...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing
Mnyb wrote:
was it not some one who said that we should not invoke intent or agents
where normal stupidity is the likely answer.
Hanlon's razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately
explained by stupidity.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
arnyk wrote:
Hiding a coil of wire attached to a power source under the table and
never revealing it seems to be a clear cut example of malice.
Some one is going to convince me that they were too ignorant to know...
??? Come on, did evil spirits make you construct the coil and hide it
, with the response above, why
do you think v69 had more clarity in physical / engineering terms?
Julf wrote:
So how does the speed of the render loop correlate with sound quality?
Or perhaps an easier question - How is the speed of the render loop
reflected in any way in the waveform coming out of the DAC
ralphpnj wrote:
> there is no free lunch.
Except if you are a high-end audio reviewer...
"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
arnyk wrote:
> You just spoke for yourself, whether or not you are self-aware to
> perceive it or not.
Of course.
"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" -
OK, to provide some more meaningless numbers...
I took a 4-minute CD track ("Making plans for Nigel" by XTC), made two
copies, one flac and one wav, stripped all tags from the flac (so that
there wouldn't be a major difference in display activity during
playback), removed the wav->flc rule from
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I really don't think so, actually very poor 'measuring systems' could
> reach -140 db and more, actually -90 db is not a so good S/N ratio for a
> decent DAC.
Did you actually read archimago's conclusions?
> I've posted mine, if you don't believe they are true, is not up
marcoc1712 wrote:
> measuring Jitter and measurinng THD or others at the analog out is
> different.
How do you think jitter is usually measured?
"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
ralphpnj wrote:
> Question: does it sound better or does it just perform better, i.e. less
> buffering, or both?
And how was the "better" determined?
"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
SBGK wrote:
> what's the chain ?
>
> flac -> sox -> aplay -> pcm -> kernel -> drivers -> device
>
> wav -> aplay -> pcm -> kernel -> drivers -> device
>
> so kernel and drivers see the same amount of data unless the sample
> rates and/or bit depth are different, but then you're comparing
SBGK wrote:
> Or what ?
It was just a friendly suggestion to avoid the impression that you just
disappear off into silence whenever someone asks questions that shows
the errors in your arguments. All up to you if you choose to answer or
run away.
As it is off-topic to this thread, I'll leave
arnyk wrote:
> You've got to get over your apparent belief that you are as educated as
> anybody. You obviously aren't. That makes you an easy target.
A perfect example of the 'Dunning-Kruger effect'
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
"To try to judge the real
User marcoc1712 started 'this thread'
(http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?104198-Disk-and-folder-browsing=828137=1#post828137)
in the developer forum. The tread is primarily about possible bugs
associated with trying to stream pure pcm or wav format files. In order
to keep that thread
SBGK wrote:
> Rather confused thinking there about extracting energy by making the
> wind turbulent.
Ah, nice to have you back! Now that you are here, how about the
'unfinished business'
yers playing longer as
> uncompressed.
As to he questions you didn't answer:
Julf wrote:
> So your load numbers are not total system load numbers? Are they the
> numbers just for the squeezelite process? Is kernel-side load included?
> How did you measure it?
>
"To try to jud
marcoc1712 wrote:
> I was the first asking not to open this can of worm , again...
Yes and no. Had you simply stated "I know there is no audible
difference, but I have other reasons", it probably would not have caused
any reactions. But instead you argued for the audibility of the
differences,
SBGK wrote:
> that's easy, just empty Loch Ness of water and if there's not a monster
> at the bottom then it doesn't exist. Though it could have gone to the
> pub that evening, I suppose.
Exactly - that is precisely the issue. Even if you managed to empty Loch
Ness, there would be someone that
marcoc1712 wrote:
> Who is deciding witch one is strong or weak?
We all do. If there is enough evidence, stuff becomes "accepted fact".
> The only evidence about perception one could give is "I fell" or "I
> can't feel". The last is weak, becouse if you - or eve majority cant'
> fells
netchord wrote:
> open ears, open mind.
And open eyes, I assume?
What did you do to maintain an open mind (as opposed to one affected by
cognitive biases)?
"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
701 - 800 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
