Audiophile Madness -- 2004 Music Direct catalog

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 12:46 am

Xenu wrote:Where does that oscilloscope quote come from?

"Please try to pay attention."

-Mark Knopfler

p.s.

IT'S REMASTERIN' TIME!

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:29 am

Hey! Why aren't we all inventing audiophile tweaks? We could all be rich! There are a LOT of suckers who buy into this stuff! :lol:

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:30 am

Quote from here, where I got the smackdown:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showt ... adid=27864

IT'S REMASTERIN' TIME!

Patrick, you're going to get me fired if I keep cracking up at my desk.

Hey! Why aren't we all inventing audiophile tweaks? We could all be rich! There are a LOT of suckers who buy into this stuff!

The question is, what? How about a lead-lined hat/mask to cover the listener's entire head except for the ears, so the listening won't be sullied by extraneous sensory inputs (sight, smell, etc.) and RFI/EMI? The "Deluxe" version would come with a scuba-type breathing apparatus.

Ryan

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:42 pm

Xenu wrote:Where does that oscilloscope quote come from?

Personally, I've never trusted oscilloscopes to hear a WIDENED SOUNDSTAGE, or CRISPER, LIFE-LIKE HIGH-END...they're just machines, so they can't tell that it SOUNDS LIKE A BLANKET HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM YOUR SPEAKERS, with a PUNCHIER MIDRANGE, etc.

Them audiophiles sure like getting punched.

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:49 pm

Holy Zoo, batman, do green pens really work after all?:

Here's why I hate this stuff. Proven smooven - how many years did we hear the argument that "bits are bits" - that all CD sound identical. Then we learn about jitter - that some CDs are pressed with tighter tolerances than others. All the measurements up till that time missed this. Then we find out something new. Something we missed before.

You put someone like this in charge of a discussion, and science and reason don't have a chance.
Pathetic.

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:43 am

Perhaps scientists only rely on what they see so much because they are deaf! :lol:

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 5:55 pm

Grant wrote:Perhaps scientists only rely on what they see so much because they are deaf!

Haw! And I'm a scientist! Good one! Here's another!

Take your lame, passive-aggressive attempts at humor and shove them up your opinion-chute! :lol:

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 10:59 pm

krabapple wrote:
Grant wrote:Perhaps scientists only rely on what they see so much because they are deaf!

Haw! And I'm a scientist! Good one! Here's another!

Take your lame, passive-aggressive attempts at humor and shove them up your opinion-chute!

I don't see you denying it... :wink:

Don't get your panties in a wad. We're supposed to be having fun here. Hmmm, maybe you DO have a hearing loss...

Postby **lukpac** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:49 am

My hearing is just fine, thank you.

Grant · Postby **Grant** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:28 pm

lukpac wrote:My hearing is just fine, thank you.

So is mine!

Krab seems to forget that a good scientist never discounts possibilites and tries to find ways to explain the unexplainable instead of dismissing things out of hand.

Xenu · Postby **Xenu** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:03 pm

PEEESEEENG KONTEST!

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:10 am

So is mine!

Krab seems to forget that a good scientist never discounts possibilites and tries to find ways to explain the unexplainable instead of dismissing things out of hand.

umbrellas UP!

Grant, a good scientist does not call things for which there are already well-documented explanations, 'unexplainable'. Just because an audiophile is ignorant of, or refuses to believe in, scientific explanations, that doesn't make something 'unexplainable'.

A good scientist does not seriously entertain *all* possibilities, nor are all *reasonable* possibilities necessarily equal. So to say a good scientist never discounts possibilities, is simply wrong.

AFAIK I have made no claims at all about what *I* hear , in this thread -- but if I did, you can be sure it'd couched in the proper disclaimers about *possibilities*.

The irony, of course , is that getting certain 'audiophiles' to admit even the *possibility* that they didn't hear what they *think* they heard, is far, far more difficult than getting your average scientist to agree that he might be wrong. Every scientist operates under the assumption that when good data conflicts with what he or she believes, the model has to change...even if his 'emotion' dearly wants it not to.

So, show me the good data. If it's so good that scientists must be *deaf* not to hear it, then it should be snap to demonstrate conclusively.

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:39 pm

<crickets chirping>

Do I know how to kill a thread OR WHAT?
:!:

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:44 pm

Beats getting suspended for wishing a go-nowhere thread would die.

Ryan

krabapple · Postby **krabapple** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:00 am

LOL. I saw that...

Is the offending party here already, and if not, when can we expect his arrival?