| Author |
Message |
Nobody
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PanHandler
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
I wonder if the Audiophool purveyors also sell diet pills. When is a diet
pill worth $153.00? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gareth Magennis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:25 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.uk> wrote in message news:433bc315@212.67.96.135...
I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.
Gareth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
Gareth Magennis <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here. It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.
|
Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.
What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:06 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssully@panix.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Gareth Magennis <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.uk> wrote in message news:433bc315@212.67.96.135...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.
http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf
I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here.
|
Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study.
| Quote: | It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.
|
Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but
clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared
to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember
who debunked that particular foolishness?
| Quote: | Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.
What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?
|
I think we got another live one here! :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:43 am Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:13:58 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
ssully@panix.com> wrote:
Gareth Magennis <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
"Nobody" <nobody@nowhere.uk> wrote in message news:433bc315@212.67.96.135...
There is a lot of truth in this article, it must be said.
http://www.g8wrb.org/useful-stuff/audiophools.pdf
I don't see even a hint of any "study" done on anything here.
Well, you wouldn't, since it didn't claim to be a study.
It's just
opinionated childish derision and quotes of urban myths. Worthless garbage
like a lot of the posts here and in similar groups on this subject.
Children do indeed tend to deride things which are fashionable, but
clearly ridiculous. Indeed, 'high-end' audio has often been compared
to the classic Anderson tale of the Emperor's New Clothes. Remember
who debunked that particular foolishness?
Funny, that's just what an 'audiophool' might say.
What part of the article was inaccurate or unreasonable?
I think we got another live one here! :-)
|
Who, me or Gareth? ;>
I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gareth Magennis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:58 am Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
| Quote: | I think we got another live one here! :-)
Who, me or Gareth? ;
I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.
|
Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I
am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are,
that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH
sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what
are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge"
about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed
fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave
or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with
something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to
say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model
in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be
out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this
planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this
problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to
need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't
know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical
theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition
neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that
yours is correct.
Gareth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gareth Magennis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:45 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ifmdnaFSFvVx5d_eRVn-ug@comcast.com...
| Quote: | "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in
message
The
basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present
moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them.
You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack of knowlege,
Gareth.
I find it ridiculous that so many
people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they
have the definitive answer to what are very tricky
questions.
I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them are
reasonably simple, clear and relevant.
I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that
current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works
is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when
observations no longer fit the theory of light being a
wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and
try and come up with something that does fit, like a
superstring theory.
Typical golden ear dupe double-talk.
Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and not cold
fusion.
Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race car drivers or
builders about how questions about the theory of relativity will
profoundly affect the outcome of their next race, they'd probably laugh
you back to the asylum.
People who understand how audio works might be a little more charitable,
or not.
|
OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.
Gareth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gareth Magennis
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:09 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
| Quote: | Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton -> General Relativity -> String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).
Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?
Dan
|
Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality. We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.
Gareth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arny Krueger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:41 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
"Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote in
message
| Quote: | The
basis of my arguments were, and are, that at the present
moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them.
|
You've confused your lack of knowlege with some general lack
of knowlege, Gareth.
| Quote: | I find it ridiculous that so many
people on BOTH sides of this argument seem to think they
have the definitive answer to what are very tricky
questions.
|
I don't know if the answers are definitive, but many of them
are reasonably simple, clear and relevant.
| Quote: | I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that
current "knowledge" about the universe and how it works
is a hypothetical model, not undisputed fact. e.g. when
observations no longer fit the theory of light being a
wave or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and
try and come up with something that does fit, like a
superstring theory.
|
Typical golden ear dupe double-talk.
Gareth, this is about home audio, not rocket science, and
not cold fusion.
Gareth if you tried to lecture a bunch of Nextel Cup race
car drivers or builders about how questions about the theory
of relativity will profoundly affect the outcome of their
next race, they'd probably laugh you back to the asylum.
People who understand how audio works might be a little more
charitable, or not.
This sort of talk may work with your friends and customers,
but in the larger context of Usenet, it just won't wash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:45:15 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
<sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
| Quote: | OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.
|
He did not of course say that, despite the constant efforts of
audiphools like you to claim such. No, the situation is that we do
know a tremendous amount about audio equipment, about the physiology
of hearing, and about the psychology of perception. Now, if *you* wish
to challenge this fund of accumulated knowledge with a new idea which
goes contrary to accepted wisdom, i.e. if you wish to make an
extraordinary claim, then it's up to *you* to provide some pretty
strong evidence in support. That *is* how Science works.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stewart Pinkerton
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
<sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton -> General Relativity -> String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).
Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?
Dan
Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.
|
Agreed, but it can give us a veru good model of reality. Can you?
| Quote: | We can use Mathematics to
describe observations, but this does not mean we have proved exactly what
that observation is, merely that it can be described in Mathematical terms.
Mathematics can predict behaviour and observations, for sure, but cannot
prove anything except Mathematics. I am having a go at the people who apply
Mathematical proofs to non Mathematical events and say "well that proves it
then". It doesn't.
|
The trouble is, *you* can provide no reliable and repeatable
*observations* to support your flanneling. Hence, there's nothing
worth investigating, you're simply flapping your gums (or fingertips,
whatever).
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
On 10/4/2005 4:58 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
| Quote: | I think we got another live one here! :-)
Who, me or Gareth? ;
I first encountered Mr. Magennis over on RAO last month when he was
retailing that brand of 'open-minded', mystico-philosophical 'theory' of
audio difference so tediously common among 'audiophools' (perhaps because
like all mysticism it can explain *everything* yet remain gloriously
immune to proof or disproof). Even if the name is different, you've seen
the threadbare ideas before, I promise.
Actually I never said that anything can explain anything at all - in fact I
am saying completely the opposite. The basis of my arguments were, and are,
that at the present moment certain things are unexplainable due to lack of
knowledge about them. I find it ridiculous that so many people on BOTH
sides of this argument seem to think they have the definitive answer to what
are very tricky questions. I do not intend going into the same old
arguments again, but I will repeat that I feel that current "knowledge"
about the universe and how it works is a hypothetical model, not undisputed
fact. e.g. when observations no longer fit the theory of light being a wave
or a particle, the intellectual ones scurry off and try and come up with
something that does fit, like a superstring theory. They are NOT trying to
say that light IS a superstring, they are just making a more advanced model
in the knowledge that some time in the future it will almost certainly be
out of date and need revising or replacing. That is how things work on this
planet. Maybe it is the definition of "proof" that is at the root of this
problem. I do not believe that "proof" means "true". Some people seem to
need to feel that they "know" how things are, I need to feel that we don't
know how things are at all. You may well call that a "mystico-philosophical
theory", but both our theories are just that - theories, and by definition
neither can be shown to be "true", no matter how badly you need proof that
yours is correct.
Gareth.
|
Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either
theories are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is
created that subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton -> General
Relativity -> String Theory (also subsumes quantum).
Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest
you study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book.
This will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell
predicted radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?
Dan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
Gareth Magennis wrote:
| Quote: | OK Arny, you just carry on believing there is nothing more to discover about
audio perception if that suits you. This attitude is surprisingly common
in the history of science, and don't those people look foolish now.
|
Not anywhere near as foolish as the people championing phlogiston,
perpetual motion, eugenics, green pens, magic wires, wooden hockey
pucks and more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steven Sullivan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:14 pm Post subject:
Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools |
|
|
Dan <dan@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 10/4/2005 1:12 PM, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 15:09:06 +0000 (UTC), "Gareth Magennis"
sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:
Do you know about the scientific process? Theories are not facts. They
do predict facts though. Scientific knowledge evolves. Either theories
are replaced. e.g. Big Bang vs Steady State; or a superset is created that
subsumes the previous theory, e.g. Newton -> General Relativity -> String
Theory (also subsumes quantum).
Do you know what a proof is? Have you studied mathematics? I suggest you
study a basic logic book and then study an abstract algebra book. This
will give a feel for the power of proof. Did you know Maxwell predicted
radio waves based solely on mathematical proof?
Dan
Dan, I agree that the only real Facts as such are in Mathematics, by
definition. But mathematics is not reality.
I never said the only facts are mathematic. It is a fact that George
Bush is the president of USA; what does this have to do with
mathematics?
|
51% > 48%
;>
--
-S |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in