What price the big steps ?

Don't worry AK, Michael's got his UberFuhrer hat on today to stem dissent in the ranks :D

For someone with such left wing views he is coming across in a surprisingly dictatorial fashion.

I understand that Oedipus' posting style can cause offence but I'm sure he is not just here to take his pleasure out of spoiling others'.
 
Andy, is an educated and smart guy, with a lot of accquired genuine knowledge, I believe he's having a Merlin day.
However he does suffer from aloof condesendition syndrome
 
That's aloof condescension syndrome, he said condescendingly.

I'm glad Oedipus is here. I'm also glad he says what he means and doesn't beat around the bush. Nothing wrong with some firm language to keep the mystics in line. :)

-- Ian
 
face it hi-fi / audiophillia / audiophoolery/ HOBBY, call it what you will is not rational. if it were we'd all be like cookiemonster and trade in all out bling and black boxes for a nice little one box system that does 80% of what can be ultimately achieved for 20th the cost. the pursuit of that final 20% is what we discuss here. some do it by chasing up the upgrade ladder buying more and more expensive boxes in pusuit of 'the ultimate' others roll up their sleeves and wield a soldering iron deep into the night in pursuit of the same. others try obscure kit from far flung corners of the globe in the hope that they can beat the curve that way. some put their faith in ancillaries, more in piles of metal and glass. if we were to be totally objective about the hobby i think we'd take cookies route and ditch the whole shooting match - and where's the fun in that?

pete,
the above stems from your proposed thought experiment, i think i've come to the conclusion that i'd rather be having fun in the warm fog of fantasy (whilst engaged in my hobby) than being bored in the harsh light of reality.
also note that i'm referring purely to the equipment fetish we all suffer from - not a love of music - that's a totally separate issue imho.
cheers


julian
 
In a condensending manner he aquired from a non rankerious initate :) who teachings help us understand the zen of the reproduced note in way that melody maker rejected & some many embraced (hey I'm scretching my cse grade 'e' pass tonite trendsetters)
 
AK said:
and as such deserves all the insults he recieves
Click to expand...
If you continue to post on that basis you won't be posting for much longer.

he may know a lot about the science behind it, but he knows little of my perceptions, or how i respond to the stimulus I hear, and he hasn't heard my kit in my room
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily relevant. A pharmacologist is someone who knows a lot about the science behind how drugs affect the human body. If they tell you that drug X dramatically improves cancer survival rates is that information invalid for anyone who didn't happen to be on the clinical trials for the drug?

Michael.
 
perhaps, it's time for some of us to go and listen to some music and calm the fcuk down? things are now getting beyond a joke and imho are in danger of going past the point of no return. have a beer, put on some chilled tunes, turn off the pc and relaaaaax.
cheers


julian
 
michaelab said:
. A pharmacologist is someone who knows a lot about the science behind how drugs affect the human body. If they tell you that drug X dramatically improves cancer survival rates is that information invalid for anyone who didn't happen to be on the clinical trials for the drug?

Michael.
Click to expand...

As to posting on that basis I have already said I won't be responding to his posts, maybe a warning to oedipus to watch the insults too perhaps :(

As to the pharmacology, and the pharmacokinetics of drugs within the body, yes they know a lot, but then so do I, however when reffering to trials you are forgetting that medical trials are only powered to have a 95% confidence limit, which means that you can say something works or is statistically significant and could be repeatable 95 times out of 100, you are forgetting the results disgarded that don't fit within the bell curve and of course all the idiosyncratic reactions with no apparent correlation to the drug or its normal effects on the body.

I once sold a drug that was withdrawn within 7 weeks of going on the market, it appeared that there was an idiosyncratic reaction and raised liver enzymes, now all the safety data was present and correct and they had and 8000 patient pre marketing trial, and it was launched in US and Japan six months before, however it was subsequently discovered that the reaction occured in 1 in 5000 people,

medicine is not an exact science, neither is the science of perception, besides who needs to read to the arrogant and ovely antagonistic words of some faceless know it all hiding behind a pseudonym, I don't profess to know it all and don't preach, but I give people my honest view on how things have happened for me, no hidden agendas, and with a genuine desire to help, oh and with no technical knowlegde worth speaking of, neither am I so pedantic, that I trawl the fora looking for some sport I just wish that others would act with the same respect.
 
analoguekid said:
you are forgetting that medical trials are only powered to have a 95% confidence limit, which means that you can say something works or is statistically significant and could be repeatable 95 times out of 100
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. A 95% confidence limit means that there's only a 5% chance that the results of the trial could have occured by pure chance. It means that if you repeated the same trial 100 times with a placebo instead of the drug you'd get the same result as the real trial in 5 of those 100 cases.

FWIW I studied pharmacology at uni ;) .

Proper blind ABX tests are (or should be) also run to a 95% confidence limit

medicine is not an exact science, neither is the science of perception
Click to expand...
That's true. However, the cases where weird inexplicable results occur are the exception. Audiophiles claiming to hear differences in cables are definitely not the exception.

Since someone's bound to mention it, the most famous medical drug cockup was probably thalidomide. However, that wasn't a result of exceptional reactions, rather, that the drug was never tested on pregnant women, a test that would have revealed it's horrific effect.

Micahel.
 
I didn't go to university. I was too busy listening to music and setting up huge sound systems ;)
 
Yes Mike, but for all datty knows i may be in the other 5% never make assumptions.

Besides I still say perception of others is impossible to understand, I don't attack Datty's posts why does he feel the need to question me with such animosity.

and another thing, I may not have found the answers to all things hifi, I'm not continually changing kit/cables or constantly upgrading, I'm actually pretty well contented with the sound I have at home, I don't feel I could apreciably better it, at least not without lottery money, if I put on an album and don't like it, then it's the music I don't like not the way my hifi plays it, in fact it just plays the music as it is on the disc, what i don't like is people whom I have never met telling me I'm wrong coz so and so proved it with this little test, the validity of which is never questioned.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top