Re: An interesting article on the stupidy of audiophools


"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:KP6dnZosBo2LhNjeRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message
> news:di320s$64p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>>> To feed back one of your favourite situations, take the
>>>> one where the audiophile claims to hear a difference
>>>> between two cables. You go in and cover stuff up with a
>>>> *** and swap round the cables. Suddenly the
>>>> audiophile can no longer tell you which cable is which.
>
>>> Which leads to the obvious conclusion that he was basing
>>> his judgements on sight, not sound.
>
>> I rest my case.
>
> Gaerth bases his so-called case on on an out-of-context quote.
>
> I rest my case - Gareth is either too ignorant to understand the concept
> of intellectual dishonesty, or he does understand intellectual dishonesty
> and just doesn't care about it.

Is it possible that the sense of sight can affect the listening experience?
If you can allow for that possibility, then I suggest that isolating the
sense of hearing, as in a double blind test, may prove that two components
"sound" the same but has nothing to do with the listening experience as a
whole. Maybe there is more to individual human perception than what
controlled scientific tests can identify. I know for a fact that my car
runs better after it's been washed and waxed!


.