Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DS-21" data-source="post: 6599208" data-attributes="member: 577690">Actually, from about 1997 until maybe 1999 or 2000 I participated quite a bit on RAH-E, so I know that it was moderated.  (I don't recall ever having a post affected by it.)  The words of JJ, Dick Pierce, Arny Krueger, and others were very useful and interesting to me, in that they opened up my eyes and convinced me to do my own testing to see if some of their claims - which I found incredible at the time - were true.  Turns out, they were right.I am done with your sorry ***, just tying up a few loose ends.You correctly pick up on an inadvertent error of mine: I meant to put "heard" in quotes.  However, your reaction to it is interesting.  My only point was that you know nothing of the actual product under discussion, so you just came here to be an evangelist for bullshit and not to help anyone determine the relative merits of the product under discussion.  You may recall that my first post in the thread was relevant commentary on the amp based on actual experience using it.  Weakness of the materials used for the terminals and so forth.  That is the point I scored - successfully, even if it went over your poor little head - and it was not weaker for my lack of quotes-for-irony.  I made no endorsement of an idiot's approach to audio.  (No offense to anyone of below-average intelligence who may be reading, quoted party excluded, intended.)Actually, I've been calling deaf idiots like you "faith based" since before 9/11.  And I stepped it up when your fellow-traveling parasites and louses in the Bush Administration started to use "reality-based" as an epithet.  On DIYMA my earliest such reference occurred in <a href="http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/off-topic/2425-dayton-audio-sold-best-buy.html" target="_blank">2006.</a>  (The forum started, perhaps, a year before that.)(NOTE: this next part's not for you, because you likely lack the reading comprehension skills and other critical faculties required to digest its content.  Rather, it is for other readers of this thread.)Bullshit.  You approach audio boxes with an mental (I intentionally did not use the word "intellectual") framework of irrational belief that commodity boxes, likely sonically identical in fact, sound different.  You seem to think that there's some magic that comes from, I don't know, thick faceplates or high pricetags or voodoo witchcraft or...something that imbues commodity electronic components with preternatural abilities modern measurements cannot capture.Someone interested in music reproduction who is more rational and intelligent, by contrast, as at least some familiarity with the work on actual audible differences in audio components starting at the latest withDavid L. Clark, "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator," 30 J. Audio Eng. Soc. 5, at 330 (1982)and the progeny of that peer-reviewed article.Therefore, such an intelligent, rational individual will demand actual proof that there is a difference - that is to say, some aspect of a commodity audio boxes' measured performance is sufficiently poor to be at or beyond the point of JND, or a statistically significant positive result for a difference in a subjective level-matched double blind listening evaluation - before ascribing sonic differences to commodity parts.Aww, how cute.  I could only feel more fully embraced if such words were uttered by an even more noxious and deluded fellow.  Maybe Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Mugabe, or Asif Zardari...</blockquote>

Verification

Top

What's new

Forum list