Ok here goes: One mans experience and opinion about the over sampling ripping of ALL HIS CDs ...

Bill, I am having a BALL! Everything just sounds better. I think I had the actual beta software powering that Meridian.

She sings to me sweetly now. Have a great weekend yourself!

Well then very, very good my friend..:thumbsup:
Enjoy, and rediscover some of your music, as I`m sure you are, & will. :music:

Thank you, and I will try to have as great time as possible.. :beerchug:
 
There seems to be quite a bit of this thing going on lately. It seems some people can't let other people enjoy themselves. I've haven't used the "ignore" button yet, but I've been tempted.

-Dave

I too, have noticed the snarkiness of late. If we all simply would live and let live.....
 
That's a bit of a backhanded insult, isn't it? Very unbecoming, sir.

It was more in the nature of asserting gentle, but firm skepticism. You folks here (in the main) know buckets about audio. Unfortunately, you know little of human psychology and seem to care even less about the pernicious effects of confirmation bias (both pro and con any given proposition).

I keep waiting for a single one of you guys to do blind testing of the systems you're always fiddling with to gauge the qualitative effect objectively. I've been hoping that someday, one of you will report: "Eureaka! I blind tested my latest change, and I NAILED it 10/10 times TWICE in a row! Turns out ABC cables ARE demonstrably better than zip cord. So there!"

Problem is, it never happens. But the confirmation bias? Oh, yeah. That's forever.

(You may wish to check the OP's first sentence in his opening post in this thread.)
 
It was more in the nature of asserting gentle, but firm skepticism. You folks here (in the main) know buckets about audio. Unfortunately, you know little of human psychology and seem to care even less about the pernicious effects of confirmation bias (both pro and con any given proposition).

I keep waiting for a single one of you guys to do blind testing of the systems you're always fiddling with to gauge the qualitative effect objectively. I've been hoping that someday, one of you will report: "Eureaka! I blind tested my latest change, and I NAILED it 10/10 times TWICE in a row! Turns out ABC cables ARE demonstrably better than zip cord. So there!"

Problem is, it never happens. But the confirmation bias? Oh, yeah. That's forever.

(You may wish to check the OP's first sentence in his opening post in this thread.)

Do you just cut-and-paste these posts? What you should post is, "You're opinions, and experiences are wrong, because they differ from mine!"

Peace.

-Dave
 
"You're opinions, and experiences are wrong, because they differ from mine!"

Personal preferences are just that—personal. But truth claims are general and thus subject to empirical validation by others, including me (though apparently not thee).
 
Personal preferences are just that—personal. But truth claims are general and thus subject to empirical validation by others, including me (though apparently not thee).

I believe in science and empirical data, but isn't it conceivable that something is going on that we don't know how to measure? In any case, even if it is psychological, what's the harm and why rain on someone else's parade.

-Dave
 
I believe in science and empirical data, but isn't it conceivable that something is going on that we don't know how to measure? In any case, even if it is psychological, what's the harm and why rain on someone else's parade.

-Dave

We're pretty good at precise and accurate measurement on the micro scale with statistical analysis acting as a machine that grinds out truth on the macro (population) scale. Between the two anvils, delusion is unable to survive for long except as purposeful (and costly) contrarian positions held by personally-fixated, fingers-in-the-ears types (NOT you!).

(Sorry for the late edit; I didn't see your "Like")
 
Last edited:
Indeed, but those are things we know how to measure.

-Dave

Ever seen the brain scans of people performing various tasks? Think maybe stats could be applied to produce a "profile" of a test subject listening to music (same source, same volume, same same)? Then, how about introducing an audio system change and re-analyzing the resultant brain scans, again with stats. Difference in scans = difference in system. Or...
 
Ever seen the brain scans of people performing various tasks? Think maybe stats could be applied to produce a "profile" of a test subject listening to music (same source, same volume, same same)? Then, how about introducing an audio system change and re-analyzing the resultant brain scans, again with stats. Difference in scans = difference in system. Or...

That would be an interesting experiment. Not to hijack Bill's thread but I'd like to ask you a question. Do think you that all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same?

-Dave
 
Ask Bob Carver and the golden ears at Stereophile; in 1985, they put the proposition to the ultimate test. Carver generated a difference signal between his tunable 1.0 SS amp and a pair of high-end Conrad Johnson tube amps. He then tuned his amp until the difference signal was nulled to 70db (i.e. he "transformed" his $700 SS amp into the $6,000 Conrad Johnson Premier Four tube jobs just as he had done previously with a Mark Levinson unit). Both amps were then presented to the Sterophile gurus for them to listen to in SIGHTED tests. Uh-oh, no difference signal, no difference. After a few technical hiccups and fixes, they couldn't distinguish the two amps from one another and handed Carver his victory in the challenge. Here's the write-up: https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

What does that little parable tell you? Think about it for a while.
 
Ask Bob Carver and the golden ears at Stereophile; in 1985, they put the proposition to the ultimate test. Carver generated a difference signal between his tunable 1.0 SS amp and a pair of high-end Conrad Johnson tube amps. He then tuned his amp until the difference signal was nulled to 70db (i.e. he "transformed" his $700 SS amp into the $6,000 Conrad Johnson Premier Four tube jobs just as he had done previously with a Mark Levinson unit). Both amps were then presented to the Sterophile gurus for them to listen to in SIGHTED tests. Uh-oh, no difference signal, no difference. After a few technical hiccups and fixes, they couldn't distinguish the two amps from one another and handed Carver his victory in the challenge. Here's the write-up: https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

What does that little parable tell you? Think about it for a while.

I'm familiar with the story. I'm a Bob Carver fan. What he did was prove that he could voice an amplifier to sound like what would make the Stereophile reviewers happy. You didn't really answer my question. Yes, or no would have sufficed.
-Dave
 
I tend to answer things with a bit more than 'yes' or 'no.' Carver showed that amplifiers can be purposely (and purposefully) "voiced." That a SS amp can be made to sound indistinguishable from a tube amp. And he did it using measurement, comparison, and iterative modification. If you were familiar with the story, you should have presented it forthrightly as it is directly responsive to your somewhat leading question.
 
I tend to answer things with a bit more than 'yes' or 'no.' Carver showed that amplifiers can be purposely (and purposefully) "voiced." That a SS amp can be made to sound indistinguishable from a tube amp. And he did it using measurement, comparison, and iterative modification. If you were familiar with the story, you should have presented it forthrightly as it is directly responsive to your somewhat leading question.

Excuse me for not being forthright enough. I understand what Bob Carver demonstrated. I don't need you to explain it to me.

We've derailed this thread enough. Happy listening.

-Dave
 
It was more in the nature of asserting gentle, but firm skepticism. You folks here (in the main) know buckets about audio. Unfortunately, you know little of human psychology and seem to care even less about the pernicious effects of confirmation bias (both pro and con any given proposition).

You'd be dead wrong about my knowledge of human psychology. An arrogant claim, if ever I read one.

You don't seem to get it - this is a hobby, not a science experiment.

Nobody will get their name on the list of Nobel recipients if they demonstrably prove their "fiddling" leads to better sound. It's what hobbyist DO. Follow the model plane guys if you want to hear some pretty amazing discussions about the "fiddling" that they do.

I simultaneously appreciate your need for validation on specious claims, and have to shake my head at your pedantic screams for evidence.

Your behavior on this thread is akin to watching a fireworks display and expecting data sheets each time someone yells "OH, THAT WAS THE PRETTIEST YET!"
 
Nice screed. Unfortunately (and as drearily expected), at skew lines to my point. Good listening, I believe, is the usual decoupling around here...
 
Last edited:
Nice screed. Unfortunately (and as drearily expected), at skew lines to my point. Good listening, I believe is the usual decoupling around here...

So you think what I wrote was tedious?? Did you think using the word "screed" somehow made your arguments more valid?? I too have a vocabulary.

Usually, I ignore these type situations, and I always try to find the middle ground....you know....go along to get along?

You're not leaving me much wiggle room here, fella.

If you'd like to start a thread with a/b double blind type situations, go ahead. I'll gladly play along, and probably enjoy finding out what is shinola, and what is shit.

However, your entire involvement with this otherwise peaceable thread has seemed contentious, and not in the spirit of AK.

For my "screed", I sincerely apologize to those I might have offended.
 
Nice screed. Unfortunately (and as drearily expected), at skew lines to my point. Good listening, I believe is the usual decoupling around here...

I liked your comment because I see your point, and agree.

It's all in the delivery, man.
 
Back
Top Bottom