SSnyder Posted January 18, 2011 Author Share Posted January 18, 2011 Try this. Listen to your stereo for half an hour, and then take onboard some mood elevating substance like alcohol, pot, X or the drug of your choice. Nearly always the system will "sound better." Clearly your system didn't change, you changed your inputs to the neuron network. You added a new chemical stimulus to be integrated with your other perceptions in your brain. Your new judgement about the sound quality is a synthesis which now includes the drug inter-action. You have no choice, that's how it works. You would have no means of "ignoring the action of the drug" to decide about sound quality. wow avocatig drug use (X=eXtassy to test stereos' No thanx you but most revealig window to your persepton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennie Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Try this. Listen to your stereo for half an hour, and then take onboard some mood elevating substance like alcohol, pot, X or the drug of your choice. Nearly always the system will "sound better." Clearly your system didn't change, you changed your inputs to the neuron network. You added a new chemical stimulus to be integrated with your other perceptions in your brain. Your new judgement about the sound quality is a synthesis which now includes the drug inter-action. You have no choice, that's how it works. You would have no means of "ignoring the action of the drug" to decide about sound quality. wow avocatig drug use (X=eXtassy to test stereos' No thanx you but most revealig window to your persepton I'm really begining to think........ There has been some really good conversation in this thread and that's great. But I think the guy who started it is a internet TROLL!!! Dennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I am reading like and diss-likes on here butt nobody is doing it sciencetifically . . . . . YOU must not see what you are judgeing and to a lessor degree nether can the helper setting up the test>>>>>>>> best expers in the world are found to be no better then chanse Depends on the test and the listener really....if one truly has no bias, then the DBT isn't necessary. Btw, the argument about system synergy and being just below the level of audibility is a mute point since all of the variables that have changed can be included in a DBT...you don't have to just change one variable at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Now, what are magazines? Magazines are support structures for the audio industry. They are a kind of parasite living on the host of the industry. if you want to continue living on that host, you can't kill it - you need to get your nutrition but keep the host alive. So, they reinforce the basic propaganda mechanism used by the industry, which is "uncompromising design." Then they simply stage races or dog shows to demonstrate how these uncompromising designs compete. It's at its fundamentally dishonest root, but it doesn't mean the people involved like reviewers are bad people. It means they are doing a pre-determined job with RULES attached to that job. And, rule #1 is don't kill off the host! The words......parasite, propaganda, fundamentally dishonest to descibe some folks but the people involved are not bad people.......Okay man I guess our ethical standards are very different. It's hard to know what point you are trying to make here. The words weren't used to describe "folks" they were used to describe "systems" and "institutions." 1. Parasite and host are just biological science terms - they have no moral vectors. Parasites and hosts have a symbiotic relationship in Nature. Audio mags and audio manufacturers also have a symbiotic relationship in commerce. The metaphor works very well for me. But that's all it is - a metaphor. 2. Propaganda. There is no question in my mind that advertising meets all the definitions of propaganda. To suggest that manufacturers propagandize about their products is no wild claim in my book. I think it is universally accepted. 3. "at it's root it is fundamentally dishonest" is my reference to the regime upheld by the manufacturers of perpetuating the idea that all products are "uncompromising," when all the engineers designing them known this is false. It is a form of institutional dishonesty that can't necessarily be pinned on individual people. For that reason, I added the phrase, "but it doesn't mean the people involved like reviewers are bad people." I have known many mag reviewers quite well, and most are fine people. There are a few stinkers, just like there are a few stinkers who are doctors or plumbers. So, I guess if you claim our "ethical standards are quite different" you might have to explain how yours differ from mine. I don't mind going first: my ethical standards are very high. Pretty simple if those folks are involved in those activities all in the name of making the almighty buck I'd say they would not be people I would want to be involved with or involve my business with or take anything they write seriously... in other words to me they are not good people. Please don't bother with 14 paragraphs to try to sway my opinion this is not the "debate forum". I'm just stating my opinion. We can agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebes Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I love it when the Professor shows up. Mark's one of this forum's most unique resources and quite frankly I'm getting tired of having to complement him all the time. Couldn't you just step on a frog or something?.[] My own take is that DBT is a bogus methodology which was probably originally created by earnest people as an honest approach to stripping away some of the smoke and snake from the rightly mentioned audio propaganda. The shills, of course, soon claimed it for their own. Remember, most folks like me start their audio journey in complete ignorance. We try to educate themselves, run into the a wall of gibberish and look for ways to winnow out the sound and fury and make an informed choice on how to spend their ducats wisely. In that sense DBT can claim some attraction. Further voyages on the journey, especially with things like cables etc. will reveal DBT to be a chimera, but that;'s farther down the road. Cause let's be frank here, most people do not understand charts, graphs, specs, sn's, voltage requirements bloobidy,blobbidy ,blobbidy scientific whaddayathings when we just want to buy a whatchamacallit that will render some tarted up pop tune it as an orgasmic treat for our pre-pubescent senses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 I have a sound in my head - a particular "kind" of sound, or nature of sound, or character of sound, which I enjoy more than other kinds, or natures of sound. So how do you know which variables most directly achieve that sound? This question is a bit more complex than it appears on the surface because there needs to be some way to isolate each individual variable that involves a decision in the design...and some initial intuition that predicts which way the variables need to go. I would propose that blind listening is a great way to discover the variables that matter more than others. Along those lines, I have no problem interchanging "blind listening" with "honest pursuit". I do most of my engineering listening knowing what I'm hearing, but it's good practice to follow full circle and validate it blindly. This can be real helpful when trying to learn what different artifacts sound like...and then once learned, it becomes easier to identify them. I'm not sure this would be good practice for the audiophile community because ignorance is often bliss and there's a lot of things I've noticed that I pick out in music that my musicphile friends just think is part of the instrument....it's real hard to turn off that critical ear and turn on the ear of enjoyment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Deang is such a bass turd with these dual identities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Pretty simple if those folks are involved in those activities all in the name of making the almighty buck I'd say they would not be people I would want to be involved with or involve my business with or take anything they write seriously... in other words to me they are not good people. That's your business and certainly no skin off my nose. But that wasn't the gist of your post. The gist of your post was that my ethics were in question because I thought those people weren't necessarily bad people. If all you wanted to do was say you didn't like those people, you could have simply said "I don't like those people." But that's not at all what you posted. You said, "The words......parasite, propaganda, fundamentally dishonest to descibe some folks but the people involved are not bad people.......Okay man I guess our ethical standards are very different." The implication is obvious. You didn't stick with your own thoughts about the people, you had to compare my ethics to yours. When you attempt that kind of cheap shot, you better bet your boots I will respond. So look, I could care less what you want me to post, or not post. If I need 14 paragraphs to rebutt your claims about my ethics, I will take 14 paragraphs to do so. Read what you want, or don't read it, it makes not one iota of difference to me. There are many, MANY other people in here that I am talking to besides you. Dude your paranoid. I didn't say anything about your ethics other then they must be different then mine. I take it you must think I have good ethics and you have lesser..... what else could explain your obvious belligerent reply. I made an observation from YOUR WORDS...... the words I repeated were words you referenced to the people and the associated business. Your said these people/business have this as the standard practice..... and then said it does not mean they are bad people.... I'm sorry you tongue tied yourself. If you think what they do is AOk then we do indeed have very different ethical standards. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID Get your panties out of a twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 How much are NOSValves's boots worth? Nice to understand how much money is being wagered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Try this. Listen to your stereo for half an hour, and then take onboard some mood elevating substance like alcohol, pot, X or the drug of your choice. Nearly always the system will "sound better." Clearly your system didn't change, you changed your inputs to the neuron network. You added a new chemical stimulus to be integrated with your other perceptions in your brain. Your new judgement about the sound quality is a synthesis which now includes the drug inter-action. You have no choice, that's how it works. You would have no means of "ignoring the action of the drug" to decide about sound quality. wow avocatig drug use (X=eXtassy to test stereos' No thanx you but most revealig window to your persepton The irony! You begin a thread about the lack of scientific methodology being used by members of this forum; you get a well thought about rebuttal; respond with a smear attack which can only be explained as an outburst designed to get an EMOTIONAL response about the "validity" of your claim versus anothers... Truth is that DBT is a scientific modality used to obtain scientific answers geared toward a hypothesis. A DBT is the only valid scientific test, not the only valid test. Most folks on here are "fans" or enthusiasts. Fans generally aren't in search of scientific proof that their Klipsch system is the best, but are usually looking for an emotional response that their system can generate for their own personnal benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Now, what are magazines? Magazines are support structures for the audio industry. They are a kind of parasite living on the host of the industry. if you want to continue living on that host, you can't kill it - you need to get your nutrition but keep the host alive. So, they reinforce the basic propaganda mechanism used by the industry, which is "uncompromising design." Then they simply stage races or dog shows to demonstrate how these uncompromising designs compete. It's at its fundamentally dishonest root, but it doesn't mean the people involved like reviewers are bad people. It means they are doing a pre-determined job with RULES attached to that job. And, rule #1 is don't kill off the host! The words......parasite, propaganda, fundamentally dishonest to descibe some folks but the people involved are not bad people.......Okay man I guess our ethical standards are very different. It's hard to know what point you are trying to make here. The words weren't used to describe "folks" they were used to describe "systems" and "institutions." 1. Parasite and host are just biological science terms - they have no moral vectors. Parasites and hosts have a symbiotic relationship in Nature. Audio mags and audio manufacturers also have a symbiotic relationship in commerce. The metaphor works very well for me. But that's all it is - a metaphor. 2. Propaganda. There is no question in my mind that advertising meets all the definitions of propaganda. To suggest that manufacturers propagandize about their products is no wild claim in my book. I think it is universally accepted. 3. "at it's root it is fundamentally dishonest" is my reference to the regime upheld by the manufacturers of perpetuating the idea that all products are "uncompromising," when all the engineers designing them known this is false. It is a form of institutional dishonesty that can't necessarily be pinned on individual people. For that reason, I added the phrase, "but it doesn't mean the people involved like reviewers are bad people." I have known many mag reviewers quite well, and most are fine people. There are a few stinkers, just like there are a few stinkers who are doctors or plumbers. So, I guess if you claim our "ethical standards are quite different" you might have to explain how yours differ from mine. I don't mind going first: my ethical standards are very high. While I agree with what you have said in regards to the practicallity of DBT, scientific and emotional variables, it should be noted that parasites and hosts do not live symbiotic relationships. A symbiotic relationship is mutually beneficial think bee and flower. The bee gathers the nector from a flower and in the process, polinates other flowers. A parasite uses a host for his/her own benefit while at the detraction of the host. Think tape worm. The tape worm benefits by doing physical harm to its host organism. While there is no moral vector when discussing parasitic/host relationships in nature (natural creatures do not have morality), when using it as a metaphor to describe people (morality is a part of humanity and the ability to know right from wrong) you most certainly do imply morality. I think your further clarification of it being a symbiotic relationship is more accurate. The audiophiles need the engineers, who need the sales people, who need the audiophiles. While the sales people (who often emplor DBT to create value in their product) may be viewed as parasitic in nature, their contribution is actually much needed in order to continue the cycle of development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yeah. I wonder about Snyder. His 'horrible writing skills' are just too good to be true... So you noticed that, too. He certainly did stir up the pot with the DBT thing, though, and inspired some informative discourse, even if none came from him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 My mistake. It is good to start on a semantically common ground. That said, I agree with your take that DBT is of little value in the area of audio testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I get more more satisfaction looking at my Hog in the garage rather than some yamaharley - even though they both do the same job... Harley-Davidson learned long ago that how the product makes the owner feel is just as important as how well the product performs. Sometimes even more important. That's why they sell so many Harleys.H-D even tried to patent their engine firing order, because they knew that the "potato, potato, potato" idle sound is so much a part of the Harley experience. I'm not up to date with the latest cruiser technology, but in the past, none of the non-Harley cruisers idled like that, because they had a more even firing order, which makes more mechanical sense, but doesn't sound as cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I agree with your take that DBT is of little value in the area of audio/visual testing. Audio definitely, but I'm not so sure about the visual part. Precisely correlating the vibrations coming out of the speakers with what we think we hear seems hard to do, but don't most people find it somewhat easier to say "This video display looks better/more realistic than that one." and get some agreement from the other people looking at the displays? Just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Yeah. I wonder about Snyder. His 'horrible writing skills' are just too good to be true... So you noticed that, too. He certainly did stir up the pot with the DBT thing, though, and inspired some informative discourse, even if none came from him. No disrespect meant to Snyder. If that's his forum persona, then so be it. [] P.S. I just love comparing one speaker with another, or one amplifier with another. Sometimes I fool myself into thinking one sounds better. But when the resulting comparison is like night and day (for example when a higher powered tube amp drives my Belles better than a lower powered one) then even a cloth eared enthusiast like me has to bow to the obvious... P.P.S. What did I mean by the above? I have no idea; it just sounded good when I typed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornfedksboy Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 I agree with your take that DBT is of little value in the area of audio testing. Audio definitely, but I'm not so sure about the visual part. Precisely correlating the vibrations coming out of the speakers with what we think we hear seems hard to do, but don't most people find it somewhat easier to say "This video display looks better/more realistic than that one." and get some agreement from the other people looking at the displays? Just asking. Fixed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSnyder Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share Posted January 19, 2011 Try this. Listen to your stereo for half an hour, and then take onboard some mood elevating substance like alcohol, pot, X or the drug of your choice. Nearly always the system will "sound better." Clearly your system didn't change, you changed your inputs to the neuron network. You added a new chemical stimulus to be integrated with your other perceptions in your brain. Your new judgement about the sound quality is a synthesis which now includes the drug inter-action. You have no choice, that's how it works. You would have no means of "ignoring the action of the drug" to decide about sound quality. wow avocatig drug use (X=eXtassy to test stereos' No thanx you but most revealig window to your persepton The irony! You begin a thread about the lack of scientific methodology being used by members of this forum; you get a well thought about rebuttal; respond with a smear attack which can only be explained as an outburst designed to get an EMOTIONAL response about the "validity" of your claim versus anothers... Truth is that DBT is a scientific modality used to obtain scientific answers geared toward a hypothesis. A DBT is the only valid scientific test, not the only valid test. Most folks on here are "fans" or enthusiasts. Fans generally aren't in search of scientific proof that their Klipsch system is the best, but are usually looking for an emotional response that their system can generate for their own personnal benefit. not hardley a smeer attack when i quoted the part ++++ how can you evalueaite geer when on drugs ???????? ???? ???? so EMOTIONAL is bad butt emotional is good > > > > >> dont' what you are driveig at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 How much are NOSValves's boots worth? Nice to understand how much money is being wagered. We currently have about a foot of snow outside. So I'm not wagering my boots [] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 Dude your paranoid. I didn't say anything about your ethics other then they must be different then mine. I take it you must think I have good ethics and you have lesser..... what else could explain your obvious belligerent reply. I made an observation from YOUR WORDS...... the words I repeated were words you referenced to the people and the associated business. Your said these people/business have this as the standard practice..... and then said it does not mean they are bad people.... I'm sorry you tongue tied yourself. If you think what they do is AOk then we do indeed have very different ethical standards. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID Get your panties out of a twist. I have no interest whatsoever in this kind of nonsense. None of my posts in this thread were intended to inspire this kind of juvenile bickering with you, or anyone else. My posts are about DBT testing. It was a mistake to even reply to any of your predictable and meaningless baiting, which has no relevance. I'll ignore your posts. What a stick in the mudd... You're no fun at all. I had ya going for a minute though LMAO!! PS you might try being a little less serious. Having a little fun actually keeps you young. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.