"The Audio Critic" B.S. or what?

EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. Heisenberg's principle is all the "science" we need here. So quoth Carl. Everything Carl says is subjective, everything Carl says is intrinsically uncertain. If we "know" Carl's position, can we know the momentum with which he is moving away from his position? He claims he can bench-press 300 lbs. He claims he can't think very clearly in the dark. (Is Carl a gorilla?) He suggests that Cartesian doubters hold back their bowel movements and that he avoids these practices so that he is able to defecate freely. He seems to equate modern psychology with another Carl, viz. Carl Jung. He claims that 100 year old books are "dusty". H-mm...Heisenberg's principle is 75 years old. Does that make it 3/4ths as "dusty"? Does "Carl" exist? Perhaps only "carlness" exists, temporarily quantified when the lights go on. I don't know, it's so subjective, so uncertain--correction--EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, EVERYTHING. (Except this claim itself which is based on solid, objective facts--facts derived from observations of the world--and is to be held with fervent conviction).

One thing is never in dispute.if you dont agre with Carl you are allways wrong.Carl tell me you have been wrong at least once Right just once?

This is why Kharma have a 1 million pair of speakers...to sell to those with deep pockets and a matching ego.

Someone above wrote: "Nonetheless, I vigorously defend every free person's right to stick weird dots on their equipment, color the edges of their CDS, reposition AC cords in astral shapes, perch their components on exotic materials even when -- in fact ESPECIALLY when under the influence of drugs or alcohol." That post summarizes the view of "If I like it it's OK". Of course it is. No one is seeking to limit your rights to act foolishly, even if you act like eber, David-Diva99, or anyone else. But most of us are trying to learn more absolute, objectives truths here. To hear a proclamation of our well-known rights is quite boring, and totally unenlightening. To hear incoherent blabble from eber and David-Diva99 may seem funny at first but quickly becomes boring too. Their mouths are too large for their heads ! To hear smart discussion points, whether I agree or them or not, from the likes of Leafs, ficciones, Jostler and Darvek, among others, is enlightening. Again: there are many limitations in the use of objective testing in audio. However, its not too hard to tell that a great many incumbents don't want any progress to be made in that camp. For know, I'll continue to find useful the opinions of the reviewers I respect more given their independance and track record. But I'm still hoping the search for more objective tools continues. I would also like some magazine to start doing modified blind testing, perhaps not for all of its reviews, just some, as an experiment.

There is a good elemental discussion of blind testing at the GoodSound website in the advise section. http://www.goodsound.com There is a link to ABX site which may have some info on double blind testing you find interesting. Charlie