Talk but not walk?

glupson
Ric Shultz’s results, whoever he is, have nothing to do with mine. Mine are correct.


I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green and Ric Shulz (again, not to offend a person, but I do not think we ever met) in the grand scheme of things. Their results are, based on my observation, questionable at best. I say so and it is the fact.


Anybody who disputes my results, do what original post suggested. Take the cover off and you will have your own results. Then believe them, not some authority of religious importance.

>>>>>Fair enough. Let me point out, though, that the problem is when you insinuate your results are the results everyone should get, as if your results somehow mean anything. As I’ve oft opined, positive results have more meaning than negative results for the simple reason they were obtained IN SPITE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG. There’s also the preponderance of the evidence, which is clearly in favor of covers off, unfortunately for your protestations.

Now, would it be fair to say your “honest and sincere” results of experimenting with removing the cover were the result of (pick one or more)?

1. Operator error
2. Having all thumbs
3. Having a system incapable of revealing differences
4. Having errors in the system
5. Having some undiagnosed hearing difficulties
6. Psychological bias
7. You picked a day to experiment when the weather was bad
8. You picked a day when the power grid was overloaded
9. You picked a day when there was unusually high solar flare activity

All of those could be true under many circumstances. That is why I have stated from the beginning it is not wise to ask people to ":walk" while entirely dismissing their interest in theoretical part.


At the same time, all of the above points may be true for any reviewer. Michael Green, audio magazines, me, anyone. Nobody should have the right to say she/he is better than the other one. My approach in such an even situation is that I will trust my ears more than someone’s who has significant investment in the problem. I may be wrong, but so may others.

My case, point by point.

1. Actual disassembling of the amplifier was so simple that it left no room for error. Cover off and out of the room (I actually did that on purpose).

2. I used the fist around the screwdriver. Otherwise, I am not the best for the finest fine motor work, but this required nothing of that kind.

3. The whole point is that even the lousiest system can reveal differences. That is why tweaking is done, I think, and old Sherwood receivers and similar items used. Mine is nothing spectacular, but it works in general. It shows differences when a piece is changed.

4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual.

5. I doubt that, although it is of course possible. I hear all the frequencies with a small dip in acuity at 14000 or 15000 Hz (I forgot which one it was about two months ago) and have no hair over the ears.

6. That one is hard to measure, but I, in fact, wanted to hear the difference. If anything, I was more biased towards confirming than rejecting the hypothesis. Aside of that, there was another pair of ears (much younger and completely unbiased, practically not even being aware of this thread) that also could not hear any difference. I have left that fact out until now to be one to one level comparison.

7. The day was beautiful.

Points 8 and 9 are impossible to evaluate for an ordinary person. Tuneland experts and me included. We have to assume that those were equal at the time of testing. Next stop Bora Bora. Everything sounds better when the floor is of volcanic origin. Much better than maple.

glupson,

Your interaction with the Tuners reminds me of an episode of Oh No Ross and Carrie.  It’s a really entertaining podcast where Ross and Carrie “join” or interact with various fringe movements and report on the experience:

http://ohnopodcast.com/

The recent Flat Earther episode was a fun listen.   I think you’ll notice some similarities to what is going on here :-)

prof,

What with all the folks with all thumbs and psychological obstacles to overcome here it’s actually more like the Seinfeld episode in which the primary characters all have look-a-likes in the Bizzaro world, you know, who can’t seem to do anything right. It’s also a lot like the movie Prometheus in which David the Super Intelligent but tactful Android has to endure the barbs of the overly suspicious and not too swift crew. “It’s not minding that it hurts.” A quote David appropriated from Lawrence of Arabia, similar circumstances.

prof,

I am just watching this parallel world and trying to learn something from it. I give it all a benefit of the doubt and try to follow original post’s end. Thanks, be polite.

Now, once I figure out what "troll" means for real, I will decide if "troll" is an impolite way of addressing someone.