[gregorio]

[1] I believe most people judge fairly,
[2] .... some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified.
[3] Most people would see that.

1. I believe most people try to judge fairly but their ability to do so can be impaired if their understanding of what they're judging has been compromised by "fake news", marketing BS, political "spin", etc. Which of course is why marketing BS, political "spin", etc., exist in the first place!

2. ONLY(!) if one has NOT read the links on the Home Page of this sub-forum or otherwise does NOT have a basic understanding of how science works, IE. The "Burden of Proof" - that a claim requires reliable evidence (and an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence)!

3. I don't know who "most people" who read the posts on this sub-forum are. If they have a basic understanding of how science works and their judgement is not too compromised by marketing BS, then most people would see the opposite of that!

G

 

[bigshot]

I don't think he's coming back.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

I don't think he's coming back.

You wish!

 

[Joe Bloggs]

You wish!

It is not uncommon in modern HiFi to run into design innovations that are technically interesting or even brilliant but of unknown audible benefit. Really, you need not mire yourself in this thread and fall under the scrutiny of everyone who demands ABX tests. We have bigger fish to fry, there are charlatans out there who don't even try--they'd just wrap a regular cable in garden hose or charity stickers in flowery prose and sell them for thousands apiece.

If HiFi were only about what is necessary and scientifically provably audible, we'd all be rocking $100 integrated HiFi systems and $100 7.1 HTIBs and it would be everyone's job to make these audibly transparent and they'd succeed at it too Personally I'd be fine with that but... that's not how it actually works (unfortunately)

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

It is not uncommon in modern HiFi to run into design innovations that are technically interesting or even brilliant but of unknown audible benefit. Really, you need not mire yourself in this thread and fall under the scrutiny of everyone who demands ABX tests. We have bigger fish to fry, there are charlatans out there who don't even try--they'd just wrap a regular cable in garden hose or charity stickers in flowery prose and sell them for thousands apiece.

If HiFi were only about what is necessary and scientifically provably audible, we'd all be rocking $100 integrated HiFi systems and $100 7.1 HTIBs and it would be everyone's job to make these audibly transparent and they'd succeed at it too Personally I'd be fine with that but... that's not how it actually works (unfortunately)

Hi Joe B

Sorry I have been run off my feet this week. The front of the house is getting a facelift, my wife got some money from her super and we got the landscapers in. Also, got involved in issues about loudspeakers elsewhere and so on.

I asked two questions earlier (I recall) and they were answered. But they also revealed, via the second answer, what the purpose is for starting this thread originally. So while distracted elsewhere I decided there was no rush, and then a discussion related to speakers broke out on a different forum...

My answers to what this forum is really about are typed in below.

I have to attend SAC tomorrow, the Sydney Audio Club, and they are featuring my new hybrid amplifier and upgraded Oppo is the source, plus a phono stage as well. I am not the MC, but I need to be there.

---

OK, back to the trenches and everybody else here:

I don't know if the battle between objectivists and subjectivists will ever stop. Honestly, to me, much of it is just noise and both sides have good and bad points. I think my problem is, in order to exist or survive, or just to get along. I have to be on both sides. So let me make some simple points here, so that people reading this thread can clearly understand my position, that it is a considered position that I have contemplated in depth:

A. To be a total objectivist you almost have to ignore your natural senses and play the distrust card, you become an ideologue - and yet measurements are hugely important and trying to get a correlation between what we measure and what we hear, is one of the ultimate challenges and will be for a long time. I am right now working on an aspect of where it can be argued that the current of the amplifier can be corrupted by the speaker's load. If this is true, then it must be measurable, so some objectivists have brought down a challenge that it should be measured, and they are right to do this. So we are now looking and preparing for such a measurement. This is an actual science endeavour and if achievable, everybody is a winner.

B. I do feel subjectivists get one thing right: When you sit down and listen to music, at that moment that is all you want. What most subjectivists want is uncomplicated and they have a right. Who cares about numbers and ABX at the moment when you just want to enjoy music. But some things are very difficult to subject to ABX tests, they are not always universal as a solution. But alas, some subjectivists can also be so irrational and quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. This, of course, irritates some objectivists. But it's not a reason to start a war. The worst kind of subjectivist suffers from what I call "instant reviewer syndrome" and they don't listen because they are always in "review mode" - even I find that extremely irritating. Yet simple-minded subjectivists who know little about electronics has every right to sit just down and enjoy relaxed listening. They should also be allowed to express themselves, as to what they hear. Simple people who keep things simple are my kind of people.

C. Never assume on a forum whether the other person is an objectivist or subjectivist. Ask him first. The answer may turn out different from what you thought. On forums I get instantly lumped in with the subjectivists and that is just plain wrong. I only have to utter a single word of mild criticism of ABX tests and they go off on me, without justification. That is not how intelligent people should conduct themselves. You don't have to force a person to be a square peg or a round peg. Don't try to be an "instant reviewer" of the other person. Or else you may be guilty of character assassination. If that kind of assassination was real and physical, then I have died a thousand deaths online.

D. Don't underestimate that many are in audio professionally because that is also their passion - some of these people I know could make a lot of money doing something they like less. Also, look for the good in other people, don't assume all they want to rip you off. Yes, there are some who will, but even a retail salesman in a Hi-Fi shop should be given a chance. And I also know some should get the boot instantly, but what I have found is that 'flakes' are transient in the industry. That salesman who wanted to sell you a pair of speakers because they had "the best high-frequency dispersion of any speaker in the entire world" will soon be gone. Yes, I heard a salesman say that with my own ears. I did not know if to laugh or cry. But there are good and bad people in every industry. Take a little time, you will soon figure out who is the bad, but sometimes it takes a little longer to figure out who the good ones are. These are the ones that you will come back to, time and again.

So I hope that is a bridge, but most of all, to those who have never met, not even talked to me on the phone:

Just don't be a judge, jury, and executioner. OK?

Cheers to all of you.

Joe R.

 

[bfreedma]

Are you going to post the measurements you claim to have which show your mods making an audible improvement or not?

Sorry, but you made the claim - don’t blame others here for asking you to produce evidence. Particularly when you state you have it. Hopefully you can understand how to posting what you state you have appears.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

Are you going to post the measurements you claim to have which show your mods making an audible improvement or not?

Sorry, but you made the claim - don’t blame others here for asking you to produce evidence. Particularly when you state you have it. Hopefully you can understand how to posting what you state you have appears.

I am not going to respond to that. Please read my post above carefully, it has been fully covered there. Havagoodday!

 

[bfreedma]

I am not going to respond to that. Please read my post above carefully, it has been fully covered there. Havagoodday!

Fantastic.

I’d have some sympathy if you stated you didn’t have evidence. Since you state you have proof of audibility and refuse to post it here due to (paraphrasing) Sound Science being a swamp filled with unworthy anonymous denizens, I’m comfortable considering your $3500AUD mod of a $1000 piece electronics as Herpetological Extract.

Feel free to prove me wrong. As stated before, hard evidence of audible improvement would certainly help sales.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

Somebody tell this guy not to put words into my mouth.

A little story:

I am on the phone to my flat-earther friend Johnny in Pensylvania and I happen to mention that I am looking out of my window here in Sydney and it is sunny and blue skies. Johnny then says "that can't be true, I am looking out of my window and it is pitch black."

How do you prove the earth is round to a flat-earther?

Don't even try, change the subject!

 

[bfreedma]

Somebody tell this guy not to put words into my mouth.

A little story:

I am on the phone to my flat-earther friend Johnny in Pensylvania and I happen to mention that I am looking out of my window here in Sydney and it is sunny and blue skies. Johnny then says "that can't be true, I am looking out of my window and it is pitch black."

How do you prove the earth is round to a flat-earther?

Don't even try, change the subject!

An ad hominem attack is not a substitute for factual evidence.

The example you chose for your ad hominem is incredibly ironic. Both for its posturing of you being on the side of modern science/knowledge and for mentioning changing the subject...

I fail to understand how you could believe your posts are supporting your assertions or helping build your brand. Conversely, a single short post containing the data you claim to have would force me to eat crow.

 

[chaos215bar2]

Could we at least start another thread with a relevant topic if we're going to do this again?

I nominate "Subjectivism vs. Objectivism", which could actually be an interesting discussion (and would, hopefully, clarify the entire point point of having a Sound Science sub-forum). Unfortunately, only a moderator could both create the thread and move the appropriate posts.

@Joe Rasmussen, since you're the one bringing this up, maybe start another thread so we're not making a mess of this one? It'll be kind of impossible to do that if you keep replying here anyway. (And, honestly, I'll probably just go with reporting the posts as off-topic at this point.)

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

If somebody wants to start another thread, may I make the following suggestions:

1. As a starting point, post the intro and A-B-C-D points. I have now been able to edit it, as there were few typos and a few more things were cleaned up.

2. That the Moderator will make sure that cheap shots like "you have a claim, prove it" are to be limited. This is just a pure mantra, repeated many times. They are not fair and this is counter-productive. My example of trying to prove to the flat-earther that the world is round shows the impossibility to counter such an unreasonable request. The flat-earther does not want proof, or else he would not be a flat-earther.

3. Questions about measurements should be allowed, but the topic should not be weaponised. Those who believe that is all that matters, should be respectful of others who don't.

4. Any suggestions that people who are in the audio business are only there to rip you off, you have to be specific about such cases. It is defamatory to lump the innocent with the guilty.

5. Most importantly, it is NOT WRONG to disagree. Respect others even if your viewpoint is not the same. Be willing to apologise if you get something wrong. You will feel better if you do.

If others can add or think of something reasonable, feel free to make a suggestion.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

If somebody wants to start another thread, may I make the following suggestions:

1. As a starting point, post the intro and A-B-C-D points. I have now been able to edit it, as there were few typos and a few more things were cleaned up.

2. That the Moderator will make sure that cheap shots like "you have a claim, prove it" are to be limited. This is just a pure mantra, repeated many times. They are not fair and this is counter-productive. My example of trying to prove to the flat-earther that the world is round shows the impossibility to counter such an unreasonable request. The flat-earther does not want proof, or else he would not be a flat-earther.

3. Questions about measurements should be allowed, but the topic should not be weaponised. Those who believe that thing that matters, should be respectful of others who don't.

4. Any suggestions that people who are in the audio business are only there to rip you off, you have to be specific about such cases. It is defamatory to lump the innocent with the guilty.

5. Most importantly, it is NOT WRONG to disagree. Respect others even if your viewpoint is not the same. Be willing to apologise if you get something wrong. You will feel better if you do.

If others can add or think of something reasonable, feel free to make a suggestion.

1. Are you one to believe that measurements do not matter? I doubt that :hmm:
2. I can see tuat you certainly aren't in the business to intentionally rip people off, given the huge amount of work that you've demonstrated goes into one of these mods. But I think it is also fair to ask what the system has to "show" for all the work done on it. You made some specific claims which can be easily demonstrated via measurements, e.g. that the output stage has no more capacitors (thanks to your innovative work on the way the ESS DAC is wired to the circuit) hence I guess goes down to 0Hz in response, and that there is a certain rolloff filter applied hence the high frequency response would be different. Nobody least of all I am asking for you to conduct am ABX test of these changes for us, but I think it is reasonable to ask for measurement validation of these overt claims on the system as a starting point.

 

[Joe Rasmussen]

Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone. And defaming me and my work is actually legally fraught. If you tried to do this to Panasonics (for whom I worked), then you could end up in court.

An ad hominem attack is not a substitute for factual evidence.

The example you chose for your ad hominem is incredibly ironic. Both for its posturing of you being on the side of modern science/knowledge and for mentioning changing the subject...

I fail to understand how you could believe your posts are supporting your assertions or helping build your brand. Conversely, a single short post containing the data you claim to have would force me to eat crow.

 

[gregorio]

How do you prove the earth is round to a flat-earther?

Simple, you present the reliable evidence, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. That’s it, job done, you’d have proven to a flat-earther that the world is round! Of course they may choose not to accept that proof/evidence but that’s their ignorance/problem, not science’s!

2. That the Moderator will make sure that cheap shots like "you have a claim, prove it" are to be limited. This is just a pure mantra, repeated many times.
[2a] They are not fair and this is counter-productive. My example of trying to prove to the flat-earther that the world is round shows the impossibility to counter such an unreasonable request. The flat-earther does not want proof, or else he would not be a flat-earther.
3. Questions about measurements should be allowed, but the topic should not be weaponised. Those who believe that is all that matters, should be respectful of others who don't.
5. Most importantly, it is NOT WRONG to disagree.
[5a] Respect others even if your viewpoint is not the same....You will feel better if you do.

2. “You have a claim, prove it” is the “mantra” upon which science is based. So you’re effectively saying, in a science forum, that science is a “cheap shot” and the mods should limit it! You’re joking right?
2a. It’s entirely “fair” and entirely “productive”, unless of course you’re a flat-earther, in which case the reliable evidence/science/proof is counterproductive to their false belief!

3. That makes no sense! Digital audio is ONLY a (series of) measurements, so by definition, measurements is all that matters! Anyone who believes otherwise is contradicting the facts/science and you’re saying that here, in the science forum, we should be respectful of unscientific false beliefs?

5. Again, that is completely INCORRECT, it should read: Most importantly, it IS WRONG to disagree, if you are contradicting the facts/science without any reliable evidence!
5a. Again, you don’t appear to be getting the basics; this isn’t the “different viewpoints”, “feel better” or even the “respect” forum, this is the Sound Science forum! It should be self-evident that the ONLY valid viewpoint here is the science/actual facts and science is not based on what “feels better” or “respect”, it’s entirely based on reliable evidence! Do you really not know any of this?

I’m sorry but you obviously do not get to set the conditions for a discussion/thread here in the sound science forum which include eliminating science! Sheesh!

G