Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site petrus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Re: Spring cleaning Preamps (actually CD vs LP)
Message-ID: <359@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 22:43:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: petrus.359
Posted: Wed May 29 22:43:28 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 20:29:50 EDT
References: <141@utflis.UUCP> <301@moncol.UUCP> <494@edison.UUCP> <142@harvard.ARPA>, <358@petrus.UUCP> <336@moncol.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 36

> Sorry Phil but it is these stupid sweeping generalizations that make
> CD vs LP a war, rather than an intelligent discussion.

I must admit that I always smile when I get a comment like this. Baiting
the digiphobes is like eating cashews; you can't stop until they're all
gone.  We all have our weaknesses.

I guess I'm not the only one who makes such "stupid sweeping
generalizations".  Consumer Reports in its latest issue made essentially the
same statement.  I can hear it now: "If you trust Consumer's Reports, you
must be a gullible fool". Well, perhaps so, but I've heard similiar
ad-hominem attacks on other reasonably well-established experts from
flat-earthers, creationists and ESP-believers, and I've long expected an
article from the CSICOP (the group that debunks pseudoscience) on the
golden-ears.

Even if I had no objective evidence for my claim (which exists in abundance)
a look at the motivations of the various parties involved can be very
illuminating.  I would classify the die-hards into two categories:

a) Those who have plunked thousands of dollars into "high end" analog
playback systems. (ihuxl!messina beat me to this one). People are naturally
reluctant to admit such mistakes to themselves, and persist in face-saving
attempts to rationalize and justify their decisions.

b) Those who simly delude themselves through ppseudo-scientific arguments
based on a misunderstanding of well-established theory.

Both groups share something that is the touchstone of pseudoscience: the
refusal to use objective measurements and to properly control comparative
experiments.

Can somebody PLEASE tell me what the terms "imaging" and "dimensionality"
are supposed to mean? Or are they used because they're deliberately vague?

Phil Karn