Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[jkeny]

Said the guy who has zero tests / wave files to the guy who listed a bunch of them and has actually done the work.

--Ethan

I don't use tests that bear no relation to reality to try to prove anything - I let people decide for themselves based on what they hear. Look at Bruce report on my DAC, Peter Breuninger has also reviewed it & hopefully will post his thoughts; Zermatt has it at the moment & will post his impressions.

I certainly don't think I have all the answers or think that all this audio business was settled 50 years ago!

 

[microstrip]

---I like what I'm reading on this last page. :b

Bob,
This time we disagree - I can not like what I am reading after Jack's funny post. (#1521). This post inclusive.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't use half-baked tests that bear no relation to reality to try to prove anything - I let people decide for themselves based on what they hear. Look at Bruce report on my DAC, Peter Breuninger has also reviewed it & hopefully will post his thoughts; Zermatt has it at the moment & will post his impressions.

I certainly don't think I have all the answers or think that all this audio business was settled 50 years ago!

With your latest claim of infallibility, I'm afraid your agenda-driven attempts at self-promotion have over-flowed beyond the hilarious & ridiculous arena that they usually occupy

I don't want to get in the middle of the argument you're having with Ethan, John, especially considering you've just taken it WAY over the line into a personal attack (again...), but this is just weak. Without anything to substantiate your dismissal of his tests and with no definition of this "reality" to which you refer, you could just as easily have said "I don't use tests to try to provide any evidence of my claims -- I simply rely on the observations of those who agree with me." It would lose no substance in the revision.

With that said, I'd love to read Bruce's report on your DAC. Where is it?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

---I like what I'm reading on this last page. :b

I did too, until it turned mean again. I'll look at Ethan's tests tonight. FWIW, I doubt they "prove" anything, but I expect them to be interesting observations, interesting experiences. We all should open our minds and ears to the possibility of shaking our beliefs from time to time. If you're dead right? If there's nothing shakeable? Confirmation is good. If not, you can always take comfort in the casual methodology and insufficient sample and tell yourself it proves nothing more than what you heard that day, playing that sample, and continue to trust your ears when your eyes are open.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

I don't want to get in the middle of the argument you're having with Ethan, John, especially considering you've just taken it WAY over the line into a personal attack (again...), but this is just weak. Without anything to substantiate your dismissal of his tests and with no definition of this "reality" to which you refer, you could just as easily have said "I don't use tests to try to provide any evidence of my claims -- I simply rely on the observations of those who agree with me." It would lose no substance in the revision.

Exactly what are my claims that you feel I might provide evidence of?

I dismiss his tests because they are mostly irrelevant, revealing half-truths that he tries to over-egg into generalisations They often are simplistic, focussing on a particular, isolated aspect of audio & ignoring the bigger picture. All of which might be forgiveable if he wasn't so bullish & arrogant in his claims & constantly challenging people to take these ridiculous tests & using it as some negative when they won't. When Ethan was asked by Amir to do the same blind tests on his room-correction products he cited his measurements as the reason to demur.

You might find Amir's latest thread to be of interest to you with regard to Ethan's claims & his statements http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-Dynamic-Range&p=140069&viewfull=1#post140069

You will probably find his next article in the WSR series even more interesting in this regard which is titled "It Is Not Simple!" - a mantra that Ethan could do well to learn!!

With that said, I'd love to read Bruce's report on your DAC. Where is it?

Tim

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-High-Rez-Hype&p=116867&viewfull=1#post116867

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Exactly what are my claims that you feel I might provide evidence of?

I dismiss his tests because they are mostly irrelevant, revealing half-truths that he tries to over-egg into generalisations They often are simplistic, focussing on a particular, isolated aspect of audio & ignoring the bigger picture. All of which might be forgiveable if he wasn't so bullish & arrogant in his claims & constantly challenging people to take these ridiculous tests & using it as some negative when they won't. When Ethan was asked by Amir to do the same blind tests on his room-correction products he cited his measurements as the reason to demur.

You might find Amir's latest thread to be of interest to you with regard to Ethan's claims & his statements http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-Dynamic-Range&p=140069&viewfull=1#post140069

You will probably find his next article in the WSR series even more interesting in this regard which is titled "It Is Not Simple!" - a mantra that Ethan could well do to learn!!


http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...-High-Rez-Hype&p=116867&viewfull=1#post116867

Thanks for the link.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

Bob,
This time we disagree - I can not like what I am reading after Jack's funny post. (#1521). This post inclusive.

-----No problemo amigo; which page do you like the most?

 

[NorthStar]

I don't want to get in the middle of the argument you're having with Ethan, John, especially considering you've just taken it WAY over the line into a personal attack (again...), but this is just weak. Without anything to substantiate your dismissal of his tests and with no definition of this "reality" to which you refer, you could just as easily have said "I don't use tests to try to provide any evidence of my claims -- I simply rely on the observations of those who agree with me." It would lose no substance in the revision.

With that said, I'd love to read Bruce's report on your DAC. Where is it?

Tim

-----I agree with that. :b

P.S. John, you might disagree with few (perhaps many) people in life and on the Internet (like me too), but to be nice with them people is to be a better and stronger people, I think. :b

The most effective argument is often said with peace and respect.

...And we are much better people here than some from other countries who dictate others on how to live their life! ...You know, the people who get rich and get richer and collect from the people they govern and give nothing back! ...And all the corrupted politicians.

- Sorry for the small interlude.

 

[Gregadd]

"repeatable and verifiable" such things as trust me, could have, and anecdotal evidence by thier own definitions don't cut it.
greg

 

[Ethan Winer]

John, especially considering you've just taken it WAY over the line into a personal attack (again...), but this is just weak. Without anything to substantiate your dismissal of his tests ...

Exactly, when logic fails, all that's left is personal attacks. We see it here again and again. It's one thing to say "You're wrong," but quite another to elucidate what is wrong and why. And when they're proven wrong, as in not one golden ear could tell which power amp was which when they nulled to -70 dB, they continue to fight anyway rather than admit they're wrong.

I doubt they "prove" anything, but I expect them to be interesting observations, interesting experiences.

My tests prove a lot! I've collected more than 160 emails from people for these various listening tests, and I'm pretty sure that's enough to derive statistically useful data.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

When Ethan was asked by Amir to do the same blind tests on his room-correction products he cited his measurements as the reason to demur.

I also cited not having $100,000!

Further, I have asked Amir repeatedly to describe a test he'd consider conclusive, and he still hasn't. Why should I go to all that trouble and expense just to have him then claim I didn't do it right?

--Ethan

 

[NorthStar]

---Anytime and everytime I come back from the Vatican (Rome), I always say "Amen". :b

 

[Gregadd]

Well Ethan is no stranger to personal attacks.

People ignore the fact that the only verified and repeatable null was 36db. And that ultimately they were able to distinguish between the two amps when run full range.

They also continue to ignore thier own standard of repeatable and verifiable.
Greg

 

[treitz3]

Gentlemen, I'd like to remind you once again that one of our goals here at the WBF is to have a friendly, cordial and relaxing atmosphere for all that visit and contribute. Amir had mentioned a couple of pages back that you may comment on the body of the post but not make a personal attack. Let this be known as your second and final warning. If it happens again, we will not close down the thread. We will suspend your membership privileges for an undetermined amount of time. The management team does not want to see personal attacks of any kind. This is not up for debate and no further personal attacks will be tolerated.

Some parts of the thread have been cleaned up and soft edited to reflect a cordial discussion. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Tom

 

[opus111]

My post #1523 above explains the relevance in great detail.

Explains the relevance? Nope. That was a shameless plug.

So yes, please "have a go" and prove me wrong!

I'm not interested in 'proving you wrong' Ethan, I am interested in increasing my own understanding though. When you persuade me the tests are relevant, I'll take them.

 

[terryj]

Well Ethan is no stranger to personal attacks.

People ignore the fact that the only verified and repeatable null was 36db. And that ultimately they were able to distinguish between the two amps when run full range.

They also continue to ignore thier own standard of repeatable and verifiable.
Greg

You talking bout the carver thing? When they found that carvers amp was different in the bass one time? (better, but as mentioned that was not the goal) That he then worsenedhis amp in the bass to the point where they were indistingushable?

They conceded that he did achieve his goal, the two amps at the end were indistinguishable. Across the entire spectrum.

Tim linked to it a couple of pages ago, you might like to re-read it.

 

[NorthStar]

...

My tests prove a lot! I've collected more than 160 emails from people for these various listening tests, and I'm pretty sure that's enough to derive statistically useful data.

--Ethan

-----Could you please elaborate? ...As to the credibility of them emailers.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You talking bout the carver thing? When they found that carvers amp was different in the bass one time? (better, but as mentioned that was not the goal) That he then worsenedhis amp in the bass to the point where they were indistingushable?

They conceded that he did achieve his goal, the two amps at the end were indistinguishable. Across the entire spectrum.

Tim linked to it a couple of pages ago, you might like to re-read it.

I think Greg may be confused on one point and correct on the other. In the original Carver Challenge I linked, you are correct, he was able to tweak his amp until those two audio journalists could not distinguish it from the reference amp. There was a second Carver Challenge, I don't remember how much later, a year maybe, in which Carver was not able to repeat the performance. He got really close, but could not make the two amps indistinguishable. Interesting stuff. Not terribly meaningful, certainly not definitive, but interesting.

Tim

 

[treitz3]

There was a second Carver Challenge, I don't remember how much later, a year maybe, in which Carver was not able to repeat the performance. He got really close, but could not make the two amps indistinguishable. Interesting stuff. Not terribly meaningful, certainly not definitive, but interesting.

Hello, Tim. I actually mentioned this to Bob and Milton McNally a couple of weeks back. Neither of them knew what I was talking about with regards to a "second challenge". They would be interested to know what this second challenge was and any and all documentation associated. Please be aware that while it may seem that I am challenging you and your comments on the second Carver challenge, I am not. There are many a folk who are interested in learning more about this 2nd challenge.

Tom

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

No, I don't think you're challenging me, Tom, but I can't remember where I read about the second challenge either. I just did a quick search and couldn't find it. Pretty sure I didn't imagine it; my prejudice is in favor of disappearing differences between the attainable and the esoteric. I would prefer to stop with the original challenge imagine it was verified and repeated, and believe the giant was slain.

Tim