Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: A-B CD used wrong speakers!!
Message-ID: <3578@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 19:06:24 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3578
Posted: Mon Apr 15 19:06:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Apr-85 01:27:46 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 78

GEORGE, at HP Labs in Palo Alto, made the following sweeping claim:

>      Although I strongly believe that no normal person can hear the differ-
>  ence between the two sampling techniques, I could never use BOSE speakers
>  for any serious testing of other audio equipment. 
>      They are notorious for IM distortion, and low bass distortion. They
>  lack imaging quality which would be essential if looking for high freq-
>  uency phase distortion from sharp cutoff filters. BOSE 901's are essen-
>  tially a "gimmic" speaker that I would not even rank with other HI FI
>  equipment.

Now, Hedley Rannie has jumped into the fray:

> Thats right! The BOSE 901 is not a serious loudspeaker. The whole A-B is 
> rubbish and should be discounted based on just that fact.
> 
> Next time select a decent loudspeaker. e.g. B&W 808's

Hedley, I think you made a mistake by leaving the :-) off your
posting.  To me, it's pretty clearly sarcastic, but I think most
readers will miss it.

GEORGE's posting irritated me when I first saw it, and I didn't
really stop to think why -- I just let loose with a straightforward
rebuttal followed by a wisecrack.

On further reflection, though, I have understood why it bothered
me so much, and I want to post my analysis so that others will see
it too.

GEORGE is using an argument of a general type that is often quite
insidious, and is certainly not limited to discussing audio
components (though it is used astonishing often in that context).
I have heard it called the "argument from intimidation."

This is a variant of the old-fashioned "ad hominem" attack (in which
you "rebut" an argument by attacking the character of the person
putting forth the argument).  The difference is that instead of
attacking the person who made the opposing argument, you attack
the listener.  Thus, the general argument sounds something like this:

	"Only a fool would fail to agree that ..."

The intimidation comes when your listener realizes that not agreeing
with you immediately will brand the listener as a fool.

Observe how GEORGE uses this technique.  In his first paragraph,
he says that he could never use Bose speakers for serious testing.
Could, not would.  In other words, he is subject to some objective,
external compulsion.  His own choices and opinions have nothing to
do with it.  Unstated is the assumption that this compulsion is
so obvious that everyone must be aware of it.

What is the basis for this compulsion?  "They are notorious for
IM distortion, and low bass distortion."  In other words, everyone
knows Bose speakers are trash.

Well, I don't.

I think the phrase "they are notorious" is a cop-out that really
means "I heard somewhere but don't remember where."  I think
that GEORGE, like many people, has formed opinions by listening
to the rumor mill instead of listening to the speakers themselves.
Furthermore, by his choice of words, he has implied that
anyone who doesn't agree with him is ignorant.

GEORGE, if your opinion is based on facts, let's see them.
If you're summarizing a review you saw somewhere, tell us where.
If you're merely repeating rumors, say so.  If your opinions
come from listening to the speakers yourself, tell us what you
heard, in a way that will let us repeat the experiment for ourselves.

But as long as you try to intimidate people out of thinking
thoughts that might lead them to disagree with you, people
like me are going to point out just what you're doing.


			--Andrew Koenig