or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › At what point does audio snake oil become fraud?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

At what point does audio snake oil become fraud? - Page 10

post #271 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post
To his credit, Lavigne, who has an 'ultra ultra' high end setup, took a DBT (I think it was LP vs digitized LP, I might be mistaken) when he was a poster here at AVSF. The result: the big differences he thought he heard, sighted, weren't reliably detected when presented 'blind'.

He came to think that maybe, just maybe, subjective perceptions *weren't* the path to audio truth.

To his discredit, that lasted about a week.

Didn't he do a BT with a cheaper monster cable and his much more expensive cable also?
post #272 of 747
Eight months ago I left one mainly subjective type audio forum in Mexico in solidarity with another member that was banned for being too assertive and too well informed about EE. A friend of mine with a masters degree in EE, BTW.

Eight years ago I was "politely" invited to leave another forum in Chile because I became a nuisance to the administrators that were ultraorthodox believers... and Hi-End audio vendors. I was always respectful to others, but this didn't matter at all

Nowadays I'm also a member of WBF but enters on rare ocasions because after two or three weeks I realized the environment was not so refreshing. I mean, I don't like overmoderated forums. Interesting people there though.

To sum up, subjectivist forums have an air that is somewhat and usually facistoid.

IMO this forum is good enough. Well balanced despite Amirms opinions. Audio is a science so it's a fallacy to look for equally weighted sides when objectivist and subjectivist POV are confronted.

If this was a forum about medicine, I wonder whether Amirm would be complaining and asking for mercy for voodoo and black magic sorcerers that were "forced" to leave because they felt uncomfortable or were bashed due to their weird claims...

Ok, I know this is an extreme analogy, but just take a moment and think about it
post #273 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post
Didn't he do a BT with a cheaper monster cable and his much more expensive cable also?
That's correct. Chris Wiggles assisted. An insufficient number of trials were done meanibg statstical analysis could not be done because ML chose not to continue, finding unsighted listening more difficult than sighted.
post #274 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post
Precisely what I thought. You were not sincere in the least in saying if that was not the case, you would gone along with what I said. Now that I have shown you to have been mistaken in your assumption, you backtrack with "don't insult me" line. How hard would have bee to say, "oh, never mind then?" Too hard apparently.

I think you're both misreading each other at this point. And it keeps building!

My first reaction was the same as htcritics, that you meant the quotation of his simple misspelling as a passive aggressive jab. Then it struck me that perhaps it was mere coincidence that you quoted his misspelling of the word, "argue", that you had only intended to highlight the use of the word "argue" itself and not the misspelling of the word. Specifically, for how that word characterizes the back 'n forth exchanges that goes on in these threads where you (Amirm) might prefer the word "debate" or some other word over "argue" or "arguing". Although you didn't explicitly express it in that post.

The idea of mere coincidence here would also make sense given the fact that both of you ended up misspelling the same word, but in different ways. If you truly meant to take him to mocking task, I suspect you would have made 'good and plenty' sure that you wouldn't have botched the spelling yourself!

But then you lost a chance at resolution because your reply in post #265 was a bit incomprehensible, i.e., particularly the part where you state, "yet you were talking about doing the same". htcritic never was talking about doing the same. I'm not sure what you were even trying to say there. And you probably lost any chance to put this perceived insult to rest for your lack of clear communication in that instance. Although a couple sentences later, you are almost able to get your meaning across. But not quite clear enough in totality.

Here is your complete response in that particular section of the post (bolding mine):
Quote:
"I kept seeing you quoting *me* having misspelled the word, yet you were talking about you doing the same. It wasn't until I went back to what you said that I realized we both misspelled the word!

You can see I did not spell the word your way. It was just a coincident in that manner and not at all the meaning you took from it.
PS: if nothing else, this posts establishes the fact that I am the only one capable of consistently spelling the word, "argue" correctly.
post #275 of 747
You are the Kwisatz Haderach, CI!
post #276 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

If this was a forum about medicine, I wonder whether Amirm would be complaining and asking for mercy for voodoo and black magic sorcerers that were "forced" to leave because they felt uncomfortable or were bashed due to their weird claims...

If this were a medical forum, I would still ask for professional conduct. I would still ask for members to have some other purpose than to roam from thread to thread to argue. I would still ask that people who have no medical background not overgeneralize with zeal what they believe about medicine.



Quote:


Ok, I know this is an extreme analogy, but just take a moment and think about it

I did think about it . I don't think for a moment people in the medical world act in a way to garner such reactions:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rinnan@online.no View Post

I'm so glad someone finally put AJ in place. In my experience he is always only interested in bullying and causing drama through unprofessional remarks and provocation. His style is the worst I have seen in any internet forum so far. If he had only been cursing and throwing remarks directly, but instead he disguises his insults and personal attacks with "clever" language, making it incredibly frustrating to respond to.

Do you honestly prefer this kind of atmosphere? Anything more cordial is too sterile for you? What does it accomplish that the other way doesn't?
post #277 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post



IMO this forum is good enough. Well balanced despite Amirms opinions. Audio is a science so it's a fallacy to look for equally weighted sides when objectivist and subjectivist POV are confronted.

If this was a forum about medicine, I wonder whether Amirm would be complaining and asking for mercy for voodoo and black magic sorcerers that were "forced" to leave because they felt uncomfortable or were bashed due to their weird claims...

Ok, I know this is an extreme analogy, but just take a moment and think about it

Good pts. I don't know why amirm harps on the issue of "forum balance" here so much. There are all too plenty of places where purely subjective types can banter freely and where they maintain the dominant vibe of the forum. Besides hydrogen audio and the Anti-Hoffman site and perhaps even that Gene DeSalla forum place (forget the name and the spelling on his name as I rarely visit there), I can think of no other places that the skeptical types can post freely and be given at least equal footing. I leave out amirm's joint simply because I haven't read enough there to offer an opinion about it.

All in all, this AVS site is quite admirably unique in that both sides are represented pretty evenly here on an ongoing basis. This, despite the comings and goings from either camp (I can list many who have left from the generally objectivist side of the ledger as well as amirm can name those from the other side, btw).
post #278 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

I think you're both misreading each other at this point. And it keeps building!

My first reaction was the same as htcritics, that you meant the quotation of his simple misspelling as a passive aggressive jab. Then it struck me that perhaps it was mere coincidence that you quoted his misspelling of the word, "argue", that you had only intended to highlight the use of the word "argue" itself and not the misspelling of the word. Specifically, for how that word characterizes the back 'n forth exchanges that goes on in these threads where you (Amirm) might prefer the word "debate" or some other word over "argue" or "arguing". Although you didn't explicitly express it in that post.

The idea of mere coincidence here would also make sense given the fact that both of you ended up misspelling the same word, but in different ways. If you truly meant to take him to mocking task, I suspect you would have made 'good and plenty' sure that you wouldn't have botched the spelling yourself!

But then you lost a chance at resolution because your reply in post #265 was a bit incomprehensible, i.e., particularly the part where you state, "yet you were talking about doing the same". htcritic never was talking about doing the same. I'm not sure what you were even trying to say there. And you probably lost any chance to put this perceived insult to rest for your lack of clear communication in that instance. Although a couple sentences later, you are almost able to get your meaning across. But not quite clear enough in totality.

Here is your complete response in that particular section of the post (bolding mine):


PS: if nothing else, this posts establishes the fact that I am the only one capable of consistently spelling the word, "argue" correctly.

First appreciate you getting in the middle of it with the nice style you used . To answer your question, by that bolded section I meant that he was complaining about me spelling the word wrong just the same. Hmmm, hopefully this makes sense now .
post #279 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

You are the Kwisatz Haderach, CI!

man, this term looks like a potential misspelling landmine!
post #280 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

You are the Kwisatz Haderach, CI!

Dune references get you today's Nerd Award.
post #281 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

First appreciate you getting in the middle of it with the nice style you used . To answer your question, by that bolded section I meant that he was complaining about me spelling the word wrong just the same. Hmmm, hopefully this makes sense now .

First, you're welcome. Second, I can't find a post where he turned around to throw your own misspelling back at you. That's part of what is confusing in all of this.
post #282 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Fish fertilizer? You are not trying to be Chu, are you?

Here is a sampling of said fertilizer that was the basis of said post:

As you see, it walks and talks like a duck. Oops, I meant duck poop.


(Yawn) No matter how much you keep trying to spin it that way, that particular duck (who seems to be your 'basis' a lot...is he all you can find? Or do you have an Arny.txt file like Chu suggests?) did not write that every AVR will sound the same as any other AVR, nor did he write that every $1 DAC will sound the same as any other DAC -- the things you accuse him of asserting. Nor does he believe those things. He's talking about likelihoods. And he's right that, thanks to AVRS and DACS being so audible good generally, and our measuring gear being so sensitive, a 'large' objective difference doesn't necessarily translate to audible difference.

Arny simply doesn't hold the cartoon (Daffy Duck?), unqualified view you keep attributing to him. I know of no 'objectivist' (excuse me, 'rationalist') who does. What rationalists hold is that it's irrational, bordering on comical, bordering on pathological, to worry about the quite unlikely chance of audible sonic difference between DACs and AVRs (compared fairly), versus things that are almost certain to make an audible difference in even an 'ultra high end' setup. But that's what 'audiophiles' - the ones on the clown college end of the hobby -- tend to do.

At this point, your continued false attribution of cartoon views to Arny and the 'militant objectivists' you are so disappointed about, and your dissemination of those views to other forums, can hardly be anything but a tactic. Which is funny given how you go at lengths to portray yourself as an honest broker just trying to correct mistakes. My take is, you love to argue (and win) for the sake of it. Just like you accuse other of doing.
post #283 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Dune references get you today's Nerd Award.

Oh, ok, Never saw that one. I just remember all the critics panning it at the time so I skipped it.

EDIT: judging by the rotten tomato meter, audiences weren't so crazy for it either.
post #284 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

Oh, ok, Never saw that one. I just remember all the critics panning it at the time so I skipped it.

It's also a book, the first in a series.

The movies are a bit meh, but the first couple of books are excellent. The rest don't match the standard of the first.
post #285 of 747
Oh, that's right. Forgot that they were popular books first and foremost. I see a film remake of some sorts is in the offing (2104, with William Hurt).

err, make that 2014.
post #286 of 747
I think he'll be dead by then.
post #287 of 747
the aliens will have revisited with a solution for that by then.
post #288 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

(Yawn) No matter how much you keep trying to spin it that way, that particular duck (who seems to be your 'basis' a lot...is he all you can find? Or do you have an Arny.txt file like Chu suggests?) did not write that every AVR will sound the same as any other AVR, nor did he write that every $1 DAC will sound the same as any other DAC -- the things you accuse him of asserting.

He spent one heck of a time, over some two months arguing that differences between DACs don't exist. If he didn't really believe what I said, "a $1 DAC in a receiver performed the same as a dedicated DAC" he has one heck of a way of stipulating it!

Quote:


Nor does he believe those things. He's talking about likelihoods. And he's right that, thanks to AVRS and DACS being so audible good generally, and our measuring gear being so sensitive, a 'large' objective difference doesn't necessarily translate to audible difference.

So if I asked you or Arny if I should get a DAC as an upgrade over my AVR DACs, what would be your answer?

Quote:


Arny simply doesn't hold the cartoon (Daffy Duck?), unqualified view you keep attributing to him.

Not really. It is the old situation of you all backing away from the conclusions of your arguments. Do you or do you not advocate that I analyze the performance of DACs in picking an AVR? Do you or do you not advocate that I analyze the performance of amps in AVRs?

Quote:


I know of no 'objectivist' (excuse me, 'rationalist') who does.

And with it, put forth a confusing point of view. Have conviction in what you say for heaven's sake. Don't back away at the moment of truth. It lends less credibility to your point of view than more.

Quote:


What rationalists hold is that it's irrational, bordering on comical, bordering on pathological, to worry about the quite unlikely chance of audible sonic difference between DACs and AVRs (compared fairly), versus things that are almost certain to make an audible difference in even an 'ultra high end' setup.

That is a debating tactic. Audiophiles care about both. You all keep positioning them about cables and such as if they never discuss speakers and rooms. In what logical world does this have to be either or?

And if I inverted your "unlikely chance" does it mean it can be that two DACs and AVRs sound different? If so, why the shouting when someone observes that? If it is possible, and you are not there to know otherwise, what is your beef with them sharing that experience?

Quote:


At this point, your continued false attribution of cartoon views to Arny and the 'militant objectivists' you are so disappointed about, and your dissemination of those views to other forums, can hardly be anything but a tactic. Which is funny given how you go at lengths to portray yourself as an honest broker just trying to correct mistakes. My take is, you love to argue (and win) for the sake of it. Just like you accuse other of doing.

I don't portray myself as anything. What I do say is that I am not responsible for exodus of a number of contributing members as some of you are. Nor do I conduct myself in the manner you do. I don't just argue. I share data and analysis. I share listening experiences. I share objective analysis. None of this makes me super human or perfect. Only that I have a minimum bar below which I will not go. Most of you don't have that and that is a shame as it results in less constructive discussion.
post #289 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

arguing that differences between DACs don't exist.

What kind of differences, audible one?

Quote:


That is a debating tactic.

The one you just tried to pull with "differences between DACs..."?

Quote:


I don't portray myself as anything. What I do say is that I am not responsible for exodus of a number of contributing members as some of you are. Nor do I conduct myself in the manner you do. I don't just argue. I share data and analysis. I share listening experiences. I share objective analysis. None of this makes me super human or perfect. Only that I have a minimum bar below which I will not go. Most of you don't have that and that is a shame as it results in less constructive discussion.

Back to your dance move #4 again, "make things up as you go". Deflect, redirect, complain, make things up as you go... 1, 2, 3, 4...
post #290 of 747
He could at least get his trolling technique straight. On the one hand, he's making the strawman argument that objectivists believe "all XYZ sound the same", without qualification, yet on the other he implicitly admits that's not the argument at all, that the qualifications simply cause confusion and somehow make the person putting forth such a qualified argument less macho than he'd like. Just covering all possible rhetorical bases I suppose.

Perhaps the title of the thread should read, "At what point does a thread become an ideal amirm trolling thread?". This is one that could be spotted a mile away, yet I can't define precisely what makes it so. I can't define an ideal amirm trolling thread, but I know it when I see it.
post #291 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What kind of differences, audible one?

I am asking the collective you: what is your position? Does it make an audible difference?

Quote:


The one you just tried to pull with "differences between DACs..."?

Come again?

Quote:


Back to your dance move #4 again, "make things up as you go". Deflect, redirect, complain, make things up as you go... 1, 2, 3, 4...

Like clockwork you make my case: anyone see posts like this on WBF let alone repeated over and over again? And from a guy who also believes in aliens living on earth? Anyone?
post #292 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post

He could at least get his trolling technique straight. On the one hand, he's making the strawman argument that objectivists believe "all XYZ sound the same", without qualification, yet on the other he implicitly admits that's not the argument at all, that the qualifications simply cause confusion and somehow make the person putting forth such a qualified argument less macho than he'd like. Just covering all possible rhetorical bases I suppose.

That was my advise to you. That if I were me, I would not be wishy washy. You don't need the qualifications. Stand behind the natural conclusion of your assertion. But I am not you. So why not answer the question yourself so that it is clear? Should I care or not care what DACs or amps there is an AVR?

Quote:


Perhaps the title of the thread should read, "At what point does a thread become an ideal amirm trolling thread?". This is one that could be spotted a mile away, yet I can't define precisely what makes it so. I can't define an ideal amirm trolling thread, but I know it when I see it.

You had no problem with the alien talk but when we get to the point what position you all take in audio, all of a sudden you want to avoid the discussion? Why the concern? If you believe in something as strongly as you do, why shy away from discussing it?
post #293 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I am asking the collective you: what is your position? Does it make an audible difference?

Deflect, redirect. Of course, it's back to 1, 2, 3 after 4th movement. 1, 2, 3, 4... deflect, redirect, complain, make things up as you go...1, 2, 3, 4...

post #294 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Deflect, redirect. Of course, it's back to 1, 2, 3 after 4th movement. 1, 2, 3, 4... deflect, redirect, complain, make things up as you go...1, 2, 3, 4...

OK, one down as expected. This guy doesn't know. Anyone else want to answer what the militant objectivist position is relative to someone shopping for a new AVR?
post #295 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Deflect, redirect. Of course, it's back to 1, 2, 3 after 4th movement. 1, 2, 3, 4... deflect, redirect, complain, make things up as you go...1, 2, 3, 4...


ooh ooh ooh, pick me! pick me!

Can I be an AJ wannabe too! Oh, he's my hero, I'll even post the same pics as he does to go along with the same fricking boring lines as usual. Man, I wish I could come up with my own, but seein as how I can't I'll just continue being a wannabe.

Anyway, can't you all see the overwhelming proof of the presence of aliens in our midst? Well, maybe they are not still here, but surely you can all see that their technology has been here?

As humans we are still pretty much on the dark ages as far as, say, genetic engineering goes eh?

So does not the existence of monocellular brains being able to type suggest to you that we HAVE benefited from more advanced technology than ours?
post #296 of 747
Hey...would someone reach over and nudge the jukebox?
post #297 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoaru99 View Post

Hey...would someone reach over and nudge the jukebox?

That might induce actual audible jitter.
post #298 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

...I don't just argue. I share data and analysis. I share listening experiences. I share objective analysis. None of this makes me super human or perfect. Only that I have a minimum bar below which I will not go. Most of you don't have that and that is a shame as it results in less constructive discussion.

You love to aruge. You argue often. You argue with no reason to argue. You argue against reason and logic. Your insulting and you love to group people together, assign similarities to those groups, and then demean and insult entire groups of people in one fell swoop. You argue for the sake of the argument and often provide no basis or counterpoints to why you are arguing. You never give an inch and are never wrong. You don't know when to stop and have no idea of what the word compromise it. I'm wrong??? OK. Then how about offering up some proof that the hordes of people who have left due to the horrible treatment by the wicked militant objectivists actually left for that reason and not simply through attrition. Have you contacted them? A significant % of them and can you provide the data that supports your claims. Until you can do that you are just another blow hard puffing up your chest, with a holier than thou attitude and nothing with which to support your claims other than anecdotal evidence. And the proof is this thread.
post #299 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Anyone else want to answer what the militant objectivist position is

Have your strawman answer your strawman question like any other unobjectivist would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

to someone shopping for a new AVR?

A rational person would shop for a 2011 AVR based on price and features.
What would Amir "self analyzed as more objectivist than everyone here combined" M base AVR decisions on?

cheers,

AJ

p.s. that's how I bought my RX-A800, features....price.
post #300 of 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

...Now that I have shown you to have been mistaken in your assumption,.

I'm only mistaken if I believe you. I don't.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › At what point does audio snake oil become fraud?