From: lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Preamp and Amp
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:09:20 GMT
Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell)
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation

In article <1993Jan26.161055.10991@bnr.ca> gpz750@bnr.ca (Dave Dal Farra) writes:
>The final decision concerning a system's ability to provide a realistic
>illusion (i.e. meet it's intended goal) can only be determined via
>critical listening.  After all, that is the system's intended purpose,
>to be listened to, not measured.

   To make an absolute statement of comparative technology as you do
   over and over and over and over and over is to pre-suppose that
   there is in existence a "standard ear" if you adopt your model.

>to verify the model with what is heard.  Of course, the third party
>reviewer must be trained, and of proven ability, as any worthwhile 
>designer must be.
>
   Define "proven ability" in a realistic manner and we might just
   finally agree.

   Define "proven ability" as agreeing with your [or my] preferences 
   consistently and 
                       let the flames begin.   



>
>Kerry and Lon;  In your zeal in addressing the entire merits shown

   Dave, YOUR "zeal" in insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with
   your PREFERENCES has bad ears, poor judgement, or inferior
   equipment is the prime example of all that is wrong in the
   so-called "high-end" audio cult.  

   You make BS claims for your preference, then finally back down
   when they are challenged.  Strangely you didn't leap on Bill V's
   postings as vindication.  

   Then when anyone challenges your numbers you automatically
   project your own prejudices on them and assume they are attacking
   your personal preferences.  You do this consistently even though
   NO PREFERENCES WERE STATED.  

   This does an extreme disservice to the folks who REALLY try to
   understand the technology and the state of the art of that
   technology.  

   Worse, it does an extreme disservice to newcomers who are
   subjected to your paranoic pronouncements and attacks on their
   judgement or equipment if they don't bow down to your
   religious-like worship of the LP.


>Your insistence at proclaiming  CD's superiority while never once
>explicitely claiming it brings you closer to the "real thing" bears 
>this out.

    None of the folks you've attacked has claimed a superiority
    IN AUDIO ILLUSION for CD over LP.  That is your projection of
    your prejudices.  

>
>If a unit leads to a more life-like presentation, but measures relatively
>poorly, who cares?  Such a case would only highlight inadequacies in the 
>subjective model.
>
     Yehaw.  Dave finally gets it.  Somehow he has decided to stop
     claiming TECHNICAL superiority for LP and get to the point!

>The fact that the majority of highly skilled and trained professional
>subjective reviewer's find LP reproduction closer to the final goal
>of life like reproduction supports my argument.  The fact that CD
>measures better awakens us to the existence of inadequacies in the
>subjective model.

     The fact that Dave only considers folks who agree with him as
     being "trained professional subjective reviewers" says enough
     about Dave and his grasp of reality that this discussion with 
     him is going to be about as productive as arguing archeology or
     evolution with a Creationist.  


Newsgroups: rec.audio