Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 500335 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #175 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
(and FWIW inter-channel cross-talk fits neither of your categories).
Tell me one device in the last 20-30 years where this audibly mattered.
Cartridges. FM car radios fighting a weak signal. Intensity stereo in audio codecs.

Anyway, that's irrelevant. Arny put forward a refined argument against my "we invent new measurements to explain audible problems" suggestion, saying there were only two types of measurement. I mentioned a measurement that doesn't fit into either of his types. That's all.

Quote
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Jitter may just be wow and flutter revisited, but I didn't see any wow and flutter measurements catching it early on, did you? From the first CD player onwards, wow and flutter was "unmeasurable" (quote from many a spec sheet!).
It was measurable from day one by comparing input data to output data after D-A-D conversion, just the cause for differences wasn't known - or justifiably cared about.
What, there were A>D converters with jitter an order of magnitude less than that found in the best D>A of the day, and systems available for analysing the resulting recordings? In 1983?! I wasn't very old then, but I'm fairly sure this is nonsense.

Even today you'd struggle to make that experiment work - record two different CD players using an analogue input and try syncing the result so you can catch errors 60dB down (or much less). It's not easy.

Quote
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
and see how many new auditory thresholds are discovered in that time!
Thresholds that anywhere matter in the domain of digital to analog conversion and output circuitry? That would be news to me. Who cares about a newly discovered masking threshold when even the masked components of a signal are perfectly captured and reproduced by commodity gear (exclude lossy codecs)?
That's a fair point. Most of it is irrelevant for precisely that reason. All of it? Not sure.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #176 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
But the history of audio is that we have a measurement, we make it perfect, and then someone invents a new way to wreck the audio which is invisible on that measurement. So we invent a new measurement that catches the new problem, and go round again.


There have been basically two kinds of basic measurements - frequency response and nonlinear distoriton, and they have remained inviolate for over 75 years.  The techniques for measuring them and characterizing the results of those measurements has been completely evolutionary. The meausrement thresholds have improved dramatically, but we've been able to measure them at or below the audible threaholds for at least 40 years.

For example, TIM was just high frequency nonlinear distortion misidentified as being something new when it wasn't. Jitter is just flutter and wow revisited.


But you've just defined (or categorised) the world to suit your argument


No, I'm using categories (actually known to scholars as linear distortion and nonlinear distortion) that have been widely used by knowlegeable people for decades. For example the JAES had an article using exactly that terminology in the middle 1970s. (Pries, JAES, June 1976) That article cites earlier papers on the same topic. The categories come of of the surpporting math which goes back to Fourier in the 18-19th centuries.

Quote
(and FWIW inter-channel cross-talk fits neither of your categories).


Cross talk is the frequency response of a channel that is not receiving a test signal. It is typically measured using identical equipment and procedures as frequency response. It is cusomary to show the frequency response of the driven channel and the undriven channel side-by-side. That's a good cross-talk report.  Clearly, it is a kind of frequency response measurement!


Quote
Jitter may just be wow and flutter revisited, but I didn't see any wow and flutter measurements catching it early on, did you?


You've changed the topic from  invention of new measurements to whether or not they were used in a way that was visible to you.

In fact it was well-known at the time of introduction of the CD (and even much before) that as compared to analog tape and the LP, this kind of distortion was vanishingly small in even the first digital gear on the market.  If you look at the currently established thresholds for FM distortion (the category to which both wow, flutter, and jitter all belong), very few even moderate-priced digital audio gear actually has audible jitter. It has bee well known all along that jitter could be easily removed from a digital data stream. In fact every CD player ever made includes a fairly elaborate and effective means for reducing jitter to any desired low level.


Quote
From the first CD player onwards, wow and flutter was "unmeasurable" (quote from many a spec sheet!).


You've changed the topic from  invention of new measurements to how they were reported.

In fact a CD player's jitter is so low that it could not be measured using traditionalanalog  wow and flutter meters. However, the small amounts of jitter that was actually there was readily measurable with different equipment that existed at the time.

I've tested a number of still-operational exacmples of very early CD players including the CDP-101 and they all had very low jitter, even by modern standards.  Jitter became more of a problem when the golden ears started building CD players and started incompetently implementing the slighly trickier problem of putting the CD transport and DAC in separate boxes.


Quote
And as for "we've been able to measure them at or below the audible threaholds for at least 40 years" - subscribe to the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America for a few years (it need not be 40!) and see how many new auditory thresholds are discovered in that time!


AFAIK, the answer is none. I'll leave the citing and quoting of candidate articles to people who are willing to risk arguing the affirmative.  I have far less interest in proving myself wrong than right than would be appropriate for someone claiming to argue for the affirmative. ;-)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #177 –
Quote from: cliveb on
Quote from: krabapple on
'Holographic' audio reproduction on the other hand is a matter of things like room acoustics, channel configuration, and recording quality, not some amazing mental quirk.

The personal anecdote I posted earlier in this thread was an attempt to demonstrate that hearing a "holographic" soundstage most probably *is* a mental quirk.

Playing the same LP on the same system in the same room, just one time out of many I happened to hear a "holographic" image. The fact that it only happened once, was from an LP (with all that medium's known flaws), using speakers well known for their *lack* of imaging ability, strongly suggests to me that it's nothing to do with the reproduced soundfield, but in the mind.


It needn't be either/or.  Some 'holographic' experiences may be more purely subjective, while others (like the repeatable, multiple ones I had using a nearfield setup)  are  really due to the configuration.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #178 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
I'd argue the reverse. A musician is more likely to have suffered work-related hearing damage than, say, a typical office worker. That's not just rock musicians who spend too long next to a Marshall stack - the sound pressure levels coming from a violin (for example) are enough to impair the hearing mechanism of the player long before they get good enough to consider themselves a musician. The same applies right through the orchestra... not forgetting the damage caused by rehearsing and performing with a large orchestra itself.


Floyd Toole in his 'Sound Reproduction' book reports two broad categories of listener preference for home sound reproduction, from extant research.  The larger group tends to want a wide 'apparent source width' (ASW) and the experience of 'listener envelopment'.  The smaller group tends to include audio engineers, musicians and (perhaps) acousticians,  who look for things like pinpoint imaging.  (He doesn't explicity say that these must be contradictory goals or that a happy medium couldn't be achieved.  I would also expect that different kinds of music might suit different goals....organ music recorded in a church really shouldn't exhibit 'pinpoint imaging' unless the producer is going for a highly unnatural 'reproduction' )

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #179 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on

Quote

(and FWIW inter-channel cross-talk fits neither of your categories).


Tell me one device in the last 20-30 years where this audibly mattered.


Cartridges. FM car radios fighting a weak signal. Intensity stereo in audio codecs.


I don't know what currently accepted thresholds for the audibility of channel separation are, but I've done null listening tests that involved reducing separation to as little as 6 dB @ 1 Khz.

Quote
Quote from: 2Bdecided on

Jitter may just be wow and flutter revisited, but I didn't see any wow and flutter measurements catching it early on, did you? From the first CD player onwards, wow and flutter was "unmeasurable" (quote from many a spec sheet!).


It was measurable from day one by comparing input data to output data after D-A-D conversion, just the cause for differences wasn't known - or justifiably cared about.


That's not the only way to measure jitter.

Jitter was a known problem before digital audio was even a twinkle in any audiophile's eye. It was a known problem in ca. ww II pulse-based technologies like RADAR. I measured jitter in computer tape drives as part of my maintenance chores in the late 1960s.  Word clocks were old news by then, and wherever you have a clock, you have the potential for jitter.

Quote
What, there were A>D converters with jitter an order of magnitude less than that found in the best D>A of the day, and systems available for analysing the resulting recordings? In 1983?!


Yes. In 1980 high performance 16 bit 200 KHz ADCs and DACs were products. Unfortunately they were very expensive, but I had one "to play with" as part of my undergraduate courses in hybrid computing.

Quote
Even today you'd struggle to make that experiment work - record two different CD players using an analogue input and try syncing the result so you can catch errors 60dB down (or much less). It's not easy.


Actually, its easy to synch digital recordings of the outputs of two different CD players. Been there, done that. For example, one can upsample both recordings to a  10 MHz sample rate, and synch them within +/- 50 nSec. Been there, done that and it worked!

Jitter  errors aren't 60 dB down in anything but totally junk CD players. 100+ dB down is more like it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #180 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
No, I'm using categories (actually known to scholars as linear distortion and nonlinear distortion) that have been widely used by knowlegeable people for decades.
I know.

I love your debating style. The quietly superior "I actually know everything" tone.

It doesn't wash. Not when you didn't know what the word "linear" meant only three months ago...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=608041


Quote
Cross talk is the frequency response of a channel that is not receiving a test signal. It is typically measured using identical equipment and procedures as frequency response. It is cusomary to show the frequency response of the driven channel and the undriven channel side-by-side. That's a good cross-talk report.  Clearly, it is a kind of frequency response measurement!
All true, though it's a strange argument that something appearing that shouldn't be there at all is a frequency response phenomenon.

There's also an obvious argument as to why gain is also a frequency response phenomenon, and I think that's probably a silly argument too. True, but silly. IMO. YMMV!


Quote
Quote
Jitter may just be wow and flutter revisited, but I didn't see any wow and flutter measurements catching it early on, did you?


You've changed the topic from  invention of new measurements to whether or not they were used in a way that was visible to you.

In fact it was well-known at the time of introduction of the CD (and even much before) that as compared to analog tape and the LP, this kind of distortion was vanishingly small in even the first digital gear on the market.  If you look at the currently established thresholds for FM distortion (the category to which both wow, flutter, and jitter all belong), very few even moderate-priced digital audio gear actually has audible jitter. It has bee well known all along that jitter could be easily removed from a digital data stream. In fact every CD player ever made includes a fairly elaborate and effective means for reducing jitter to any desired low level.


Quote
From the first CD player onwards, wow and flutter was "unmeasurable" (quote from many a spec sheet!).


You've changed the topic from  invention of new measurements to how they were reported.

In fact a CD player's jitter is so low that it could not be measured using traditionalanalog  wow and flutter meters. However, the small amounts of jitter that was actually there was readily measurable with different equipment that existed at the time.
How? And did people? I'm genuinely interested.

Quote
I've tested a number of still-operational exacmples of very early CD players including the CDP-101 and they all had very low jitter, even by modern standards.  Jitter became more of a problem when the golden ears started building CD players and started incompetently implementing the slighly trickier problem of putting the CD transport and DAC in separate boxes.
Using SPDIF. Teaching my Grandmother here though.

So what do you believe the audible threshold for jitter to be?

I don't think it's a single number, but maybe you have one in mind?

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #181 –
2bedecided,

You wrote that the lossyWAV cumulative ABX runs 'became more conclusive' but at the same time weren't sure the conclusion was statisically valid.  Me neither.  It did, however, seem to me that you were according the first possibility more weight than the latter, and for that I apologize, because apparently we agree more than not on this.  We also agreed in correcting BORK's assumption that his subject's single '5.8%' run could not have been due to chance (you did it on the lossyWAV thread, I did it here). 


But:

NO ONE here is saying 320 mp3 is the perceptual apex of audio, everywhere and always, just as NO ONE here actually says 'all amps sound the same' or 'all CDPs sound the same' , tout court, without qualification.  NO ONE says that a 'no difference' 128mp3 ABX invalidates others' successful ABX of same.

NO ONE, , including me, is saying that ABXable 320mp3 differences 'doesn't really matter'.  I'm saying it may matter in some contexts, and not others.  (An analogous example would be Meyer and Moran's finding that DSD could be ABXed from Redbooks, under *certain conditions*).  That's not moving the goalposts, that's keeping the perspective 'normal' rather than skewed -- IMHO.

As for iPods and boutique CDPs, Axon was careful to qualify his post...even providing some speculation on what contexts may make the noise level *matter* or not.  Again, the horselaughs tend to come at the expense of those who claim an immediate, obvious difference, based on 'common sense' -- the 'audiophool' stance -- not the careful qualified claims of the Axon, the type of reporter for whom' I'd like to reclaim the term audio *phile*.

Hysterical misrepresentation and overstatement of 'objectivists' stance, is what I've come to expect from the 'audiophools', not you.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #182 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
It doesn't wash. Not when you didn't know what the word "linear" meant only three months ago...
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=608041


A single (incorrect) post in Hydrogen Audio falls well far short of proving that I don't know what  linear means.  I let it drop because it wasn't worth the effort to cure the young man of his foolishment.

Actually, proving that I don't know what linear means would require mind reading. If you wish to claim to be able to read my mind, well feel free to discredit yourself that way! ;-)

Quote
Quote

Cross talk is the frequency response of a channel that is not receiving a test signal. It is typically measured using identical equipment and procedures as frequency response. It is cusomary to show the frequency response of the driven channel and the undriven channel side-by-side. That's a good cross-talk report.  Clearly, it is a kind of frequency response measurement!


All true, though it's a strange argument that something appearing that shouldn't be there at all is a frequency response phenomenon.


No stranger than measuring a distortion that shouldn't be there...

Quote
Quote

Jitter may just be wow and flutter revisited, but I didn't see any wow and flutter measurements catching it early on, did you?


You've changed the topic from  invention of new measurements to whether or not they were used in a way that was visible to you.

In fact it was well-known at the time of introduction of the CD (and even much before) that as compared to analog tape and the LP, this kind of distortion was vanishingly small in even the first digital gear on the market.  If you look at the currently established thresholds for FM distortion (the category to which both wow, flutter, and jitter all belong), very few even moderate-priced digital audio gear actually has audible jitter. It has bee well known all along that jitter could be easily removed from a digital data stream. In fact every CD player ever made includes a fairly elaborate and effective means for reducing jitter to any desired low level.


Quote
Quote

From the first CD player onwards, wow and flutter was "unmeasurable" (quote from many a spec sheet!).


In fact a CD player's jitter is so low that it could not be measured using traditional analog  wow and flutter meters. However, the small amounts of jitter that was actually there was readily measurable with different equipment that existed at the time.


Quote
How? And did people? I'm genuinely interested.


Relatively small amounts of jitter can be measured with a good expanded sweep oscillioscpe.

Quote
So what do you believe the audible threshold for jitter to be?


It is generally agreed by most scientific researchers that any artifact or spurious response that is > 100 dB below FS can be safely ignored.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #183 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
2Bdecided. ABX is not the last resort for everything. It is a fantastic tool to evaluate non linear or psycho acoustical processes like lossy compression or the non-impact of audio voodoo. ABXing, although hard to implement, is also a great tool to for speaker evaluation, were still not enough purely objective metrics exist.


I'd have to revisit the methods sections to verify, but I don't think NRC/Harman/Olive actuallly used an ABX protocol per se -- though it was double-blind.  ABX isn't well suited for preference ranking, which is what the extant loudspeaker listening literature is about.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #184 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: rpp3po on
2Bdecided. ABX is not the last resort for everything. It is a fantastic tool to evaluate non linear or psycho acoustical processes like lossy compression or the non-impact of audio voodoo. ABXing, although hard to implement, is also a great tool to for speaker evaluation, were still not enough purely objective metrics exist.


I'd have to revisit the methods sections to verify, but I don't think NRC/Harman/Olive actuallly used an ABX protocol per se -- though it was double-blind.  ABX isn't well suited for preference ranking, which is what the extant loudspeaker listening literature is about.


Correct. Questions involving ranking led to things like ABC/hr

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #185 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: B0RK on
ABX tests , Are Subjecive tests.

Hearing is subjective. ABX is a technique for evaluating hearing objectively.


Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this.
You just put the last nail in whatever it was you were trying to say all by yourself.
Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place.
(Oh actually you did by Ron Jones , Thanks)

Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
There's complete scorn at the idea that an "expensive" system is any better than in iPod, despite the obvious advantages of hearing music over good speakers driven by capable amplifiers.

No, there isn't. The debate is not cheap vs. expensive but against putting money into the absolutely wrong end of the chain. As horrifying this may sound to people, who conceive audio gear as part of their ego: technology has advanced up to a point where perfect (in terms of a given FR and SNR) reproduction of recorded material has become possible with commodity parts. With one exception: speakers. This is where money still can make a huge difference, this is where the biggest deviations (several db) from a flat FR happen. Compared to that the differences between iPods and high end CD players or Foobar with a vinyl saturation plugin and an actual vinyl records are laughably small if at all existent.


Ask anyone that upgraded their speakers , & many will tell you that it led to revealing weakness in their source components as well.

Good speakers are not that Selective you see.
They will reveal more from the music yes, but they will also reveal more of the noise , artifacts etc etc.

Quote from: rpp3po on
I own a DAC that was more expensive than necessary myself, also an amp that could have been cheaper without the 'look'. That doesn't keep me from playing AAC files from my portable computer and and enjoying a mind blowing musical experience. Sometimes I go the extra route and reimport lossless files from my archive. But that's pure fancy. I would never try to convince people that not doing the same would necessarily lead to an inferior experience.


But you do not seem to have a problem to try to convince people ,
That Starting with a Purer Source Material ,
& not a non debatable , scientifically proven (!) inferior lossy one,
in their case ,assuming they do not have Your ears (judging by your own definition, obviously cannot tell the difference),
IS scientifically, fact backed, more likely to lead to a Superior one !
Let's hear you say that.

The fact that when it suits you, you do have a problem conforming to the Real currently available Science of it, & ONLY to your own subjective ABX tests results, that is truly disturbing.

Quote from: rpp3po on
The debate is not cheap vs. expensive ...

I have heard that in the US evil hippies sometimes contaminate drinking water with LSD. Now take into account that evil hippies, when they get older and come into money, often turn into subjectivistic audiophiles. I am pretty sure that some audiophile wannabe synesthesiac tried to recruit followers through the local waterworks on that day. Who knows, maybe it was even F. himself.


God alimghty ..
What are you saying now ?

Maybe we should go ahead & hunt down the Hippies now, just in case some of them ,
according to your delusional mind , will get enough money &/or become Audiophiles ?

OK .that does it , I have tried to ignore your misinformed & offending posts , but this is too much .. not this time.

I suggest you stop tagging people with your beloved "Audiophool" insults as well,
just get a mirror to meet one in the flesh.

Your angle of things is most certainly not Audio related , & it verges on Hate Spewing Propaganda.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #186 –
Quote from: B0RK on
Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this. Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place. (Oh actually you did by Ron Jones , Thanks)

My ears are burning. I guess my sarcasm in that post wasn't as obvious as I intended.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #188 –
@Ron Jones

Yep , & that's coming from the ABX flag waving, & supposedly Stats expert himself  .

That comment is Only equalled / topped by rpp3po's pathetic anti Hippie/Audiophile, conspiracy theory.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #189 –
Quote from: Ron Jones on
Quote from: B0RK on
Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this. Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place. (Oh actually you did by Ron Jones , Thanks)

My ears are burning. I guess my sarcasm in that post wasn't as obvious as I intended.



It was, don't worry.  The problem here is not at the broadcast end. 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #190 –
Quote from: B0RK on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: B0RK on
ABX tests , Are Subjecive tests.

Hearing is subjective. ABX is a technique for evaluating hearing objectively.


Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this.
You just put the last nail in whatever it was you were trying to say all by yourself.
Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place.
(Oh actually you did by Ron Jones , Thanks)


Huh, how is this incorrect. This is like blind wine tasting. Taste is subjective, blind wine tasting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_tasting#Blind_tasting

is a technique for evaluating the nose (smell) and palate (taste) objectively. This is well understood in the F&B industry. It might not be what you want to hear, but it is correct.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #191 –
Quote from: cpchan on
Quote from: B0RK on
Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this.
You just put the last nail in whatever it was you were trying to say all by yourself.
Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place.
(Oh actually you did by Ron Jones , Thanks)


Huh, how is this incorrect. This is like blind wine tasting. Taste is subjective, blind wine tasting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_tasting#Blind_tasting

is a technique for evaluating the nose (smell) and palate (taste) objectively. This is well understood in the F&B industry. It might not be what you want to hear, but it is correct.



Yup. ABX testing isn''t *just* subjective -- it's the post-trial comparison of the subjective component (the perceived/reported identity of X) to the objective fact (the actual identity of X) that makes it objective.  Oh, and the statistics that tell how likely the matchup between subjective impression and fact was due to chance.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #193 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: B0RK on
Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this.


Don't worry, many of us feel the exact same way when reading your posts.


You don't say ..
Again, Let me ask just who exactly is the 'WE' you crowned yourself the spokesman for.
"Many of us" ...yeah right.

What ,youre gonna hunt me down with rpp3po after you kill all the Hippies before they become Audiophiles ? ... right

Not surprisingly, you have zero problems with the pure BS posted by some here,
but you do have a problem with me for some reason.

Assuming you are referring to your AudioPhile Hating / Lossy Forever / If I Can't Hear it -  No One Will / crusader buddies :

If reading any of my personal views causes any of you any discomfort , I truly am sorry , I am only stating my opinion, based on MY Life's experience.

I did not think such narrow minded & hatred infused flaming attitude against Audiophiles,
or any & music lover that makes an effort for better audio, belongs here in HA.


So maybe Slowly , but Surely though ,You'll have to change your mind about what I said.

Cause what you got from me, is nothing in comparison to what you will, one day, get from Your Kids & grandkids.

They will be sitting there , grinning at you with their 'Low End' 100 Terrabyte portables
playing & creating their own rough mixes of their 192 khz 24 bit Multichannel master transfers,
playing them on wireless high bandwidth transducers,
giving you a bored but worried yawn when you tell them about your lossy audio dark ages, how 'they don't need it', & how 'they can't tell the difference anyway', & finally how "you can save them all that space', if only you could find your 'vintage' .XXX encoder ..

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #194 –
thunder in April --
audiophile lashes out --
side of barn intact




Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #195 –
Quote from: B0RK on
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: B0RK on
ABX tests , Are Subjecive tests.

Hearing is subjective. ABX is a technique for evaluating hearing objectively.


Honestly ..I just cannot belive I am reading this.
You just put the last nail in whatever it was you were trying to say all by yourself.
Don't be all that surprised you did not get some further clarification demands about this , as it is just  too embarassing to even read it posted in this place.
So basically you have no idea how science works...

All science begins as subjective observation and through the scientific method and control (in this case, bias control), objective conclusions are made.

B0RK, you are seriously making quite an ass of yourself.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #196 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
[
All science begins as subjective observation and through the scientific method and control (in this case, bias control), objective conclusions are made.

B0RK, you are seriously making quite an ass of yourself.



Yet Another contender for dumbass of the year award.

Science , Fool , begins with Questions.

As you seem to know my science background all so well ...
& it is no match for your Scientific prowess ,
Please, Enlighten Me , with your scientific knowledge about the matters at hand Oh Almighty Snake.

Ill give you an easy one , just ask your buddies , Explain why Audiophiles are Evil.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #197 –
Man, what a fuckin' nightmare...

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #198 –
Quote from: Ron Jones on
Man, what a fuckin' nightmare...


I wonder if perhaps BORK is really a time traveler from an earlier, simpler time...when the rules of capitalization hadn't stabilized,  and snarky humor (like rppo's riff on hippies, acid, and audiophiles) could only be taken at face value.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #199 –
Quote from: B0RK on
God alimghty ..
What are you saying now ?

Maybe we should go ahead & hunt down the Hippies now, just in case some of them ,
according to your delusional mind , will get enough money &/or become Audiophiles ?

OK .that does it , I have tried to ignore your misinformed & offending posts , but this is too much .. not this time.


God almighty, how could I forget the <irony> tags!

Thanks for the tremendous laugh!

WE ARE THE BORK, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!