what ever happened to Mtrycrafts and CE?

They livened up the forum. CE with his Legacy Foci (one in one room, the other in another) and Mtrycraft's line of reason vs the audiophile insane clown posse?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bubbagump

They livened up the forum. CE with his Legacy Foci (one in one room, the other in another) and Mtrycraft's line of reason vs the audiophile insane clown posse?

---

bubba,

I haven't seen Mtrycraft around here for years. He's likely in the land of the living, though, as saw him on another forum a year or so ago.

Can't say I recall CE, but I might be just forgetting since I've been around here since '02.

Don't know about CE, but I've seen Mtrycraft over at Audioholics now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

...but I've seen Mtrycraft over at Audioholics now and then.

---

Now and then? He's now an Audioholics Overlord !

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Now and then? He's now an Audioholics Overlord !

rw

---

Hahaha... Maybe I'm the one who's only there now and then.

CE... My goodness that is a name that takes me back to a time I was using a different user name.... been so long I can't even remember what it was. I will say that I was a Legacy speaker owner back then and was ready to hunt him down for all of his Focus ridiculousness. He set Legacy Audio sales back 10 years with his over-the-top Focus bravado.

Mtrycrafts I actually miss. While I may not have agreed with him all the time, I found him quite rational and interesting.

---Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drseid

I found him quite rational and interesting.

---

I'll be a dissenting voice on the rational part. He had trouble following posts that involved details.

Here is an example he purported to defend his position about cables. I think he never grasped the fact that the two cable contestants were both mid-priced flavors. After calling his hand on alleged "facts", he had to acknowledge that ZERO of his referenced tests used gear anything better than entry level receivers. These posts referenced illustrate. Indeed he was most entertaining. :)

rw

I guess CE's still on the hunt over at Audio Asylum. If you don't remember him, he was sort of Grouch Marx to everyone elses (everyone that took the bait that is) fall guy. After someone reminded me of Audio Asylum, I searched and found a lot of his trheads. It's hilarious how people often respond to his nonsense in fits of rage. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl...akers&m=101021

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

bubba,

I haven't seen Mtrycraft around here for years. He's likely in the land of the living, though, as saw him on another forum a year or so ago.

Can't say I recall CE, but I might be just forgetting since I've been around here since '02.

---

This forum banned discussion of DBT's and as such the forum has never been the same since. You have to weigh the irritating endless DBT discussions versus a ghost town forum that this forum has since become.

On the other hand - people are free to make whatever decision they wish to make. My suggestion has always been to have a "sticky" on every page of every forum directing people to a "Why you should do a DBT before you buy." Then I suggested to people like Mrtycrft and PatD and theaudiohobby, and eyespy to get together and write a paper with all the links and tests that have ever been conducted - put in an article and then whenever a newbie comes on the forum you say "read this" and direct them to the link.

A sticky with a similar article for reasons against that have been documented in psychology and biology journals illustrating the deficiencies in such tests can also be posted in a counter sticky. Then the person can be directed to both sides of the debate.

It is not for me to convince you which side of the debate to believe - it is up to YOU to decide based on the articles written.

This way the person can read the arguments and decide for themselves where they want to pitch their tent. For some reason (I was guilty at one time as well) we feel the need to "win" the argument but I have never seen any person on any forum in 11 years change their mind on this topic. And countless threads and countless verbiage has been spent on it usually between the same people making the same case over and over again.

Once you've told the newbie about the DBT what it does why you should use it - then be done with it - you made the point and now it's caveat emptor. Spend the rest of your time going after the drug industry where lives are on the line rather than saving some rich kid who is looking at spending $4000 on a meter of cable. Frankly - if this kid gets screwed and the cable is no different - how did you really help the world? If you got $4k to spend on a meter of wire then you have no "real" problems, when it comes to money anyway.

They rely very, very heavily on DBT's in their evaluations. But, to mention them for audio applications, particularly here, here is an anathema

Mtrycrafts was a pain in the butt. When it came to wires, he took a stance and never deviated from it. He would repeat his position over and over and over and would not engage in any discussion outside the scope of his beliefs. He was closed minded beyond reason.

Still, everything he said was reasonable and made sense, but if anything was mentioned that didn't fit into his rational logic, he would simply blow it off and go on his tirade about DBT's.

My only real complaint was that if there was a discussion about wires he would hijack the thread and harass until people just quit the discussion.

Well anyway, I really don't miss him. Once the discussion went beyond DBT's and wire tests using electronic test equipment, he had nothing to offer. His mind seemed to go blank.

Yes, he would liven up the conversation, but he did this by criticizing the posts of other members of this board and starting arguments. His world was black and white and there was no room for any ideas that didn't fit his beliefs. It was his way or the highway. He had no respect for any opinion other than his own. As for myself, for a long time I quit posting here because of him. I really didn't feel like getting into a fight every time I said anything. It wouldn't surprise me if others left the board for the same reason. He did more harm than good.

As for this forum, it has quieted down a great deal over the years. From time to time, some of the best discussions I have read have come from members of this board, but for the most part, the discussion here is is rather benign. No offense guys, but when I am researching I rarely spend much time on this site. However, I love audioreview. It is a great place for lighter and less focused conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

This forum banned discussion of DBT's and as such the forum has never been the same since. You have to weigh the irritating endless DBT discussions versus a ghost town forum that this forum has since become.

...

---

Yes, it's my clear recollection that many people bailed from AR forums when the then moderators announce a stricter policy that included banning, (deleting), certain controversial topics.

I don't recall that it was only DBT but I was never aware of a specific list of topics or behaviors that were to be banned. In any case a number of people left including Mtrycrafts. The place has never really recovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Mtrycrafts was a pain in the butt. When it came to wires, he took a stance and never deviated from it. He would repeat his position over and over and over and would not engage in any discussion outside the scope of his beliefs. He was closed minded beyond reason.

Still, everything he said was reasonable and made sense, but if anything was mentioned that didn't fit into his rational logic, he would simply blow it off and go on his tirade about DBT's.

My only real complaint was that if there was a discussion about wires he would hijack the thread and harass until people just quit the discussion.

Well anyway, I really don't miss him. Once the discussion went beyond DBT's and wire tests using electronic test equipment, he had nothing to offer. His mind seemed to go blank.

Yes, he would liven up the conversation, but he did this by criticizing the posts of other members of this board and starting arguments. His world was black and white and there was no room for any ideas that didn't fit his beliefs. It was his way or the highway. He had no respect for any opinion other than his own. As for myself, for a long time I quit posting here because of him. I really didn't feel like getting into a fight every time I said anything. It wouldn't surprise me if others left the board for the same reason. He did more harm than good.

As for this forum, it has quieted down a great deal over the years. From time to time, some of the best discussions I have read have come from members of this board, but for the most part, the discussion here is is rather benign. No offense guys, but when I am researching I rarely spend much time on this site. However, I love audioreview. It is a great place for lighter and less focused conversation.

---

Mtrycrafts was as vociferous as he was dogmatic although personally he didn't bother me that much. But if, as you imply, people lelt stifled because of him, then it would clearly have better to have banned him rather than controversial discussion. But it was the latter that was done with the consequence that we lost not only "Marty" but also a lot of other people too.

I brings to mind an individual at another forum, clarkjohnsen, who got himself banned for slanderous insinuation or some such pretext, but ultimately for arrogant contempt for other members. 80% of his posts were snide, no-text one liners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

This forum banned discussion of DBT's and as such the forum has never been the same since. You have to weigh the irritating endless DBT discussions versus a ghost town forum that this forum has since become.

---

That is not true. Like AA, such discussions were encouraged - but in the Audio Lab.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

They rely very, very heavily on DBT's in their evaluations.

---

Yet, there is a critical difference: participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant

Mtrycrafts was a pain in the butt. When it came to wires, he took a stance and never deviated from it. He would repeat his position over and over and over and would not engage in any discussion outside the scope of his beliefs. He was closed minded beyond reason.

Still, everything he said was reasonable and made sense, but if anything was mentioned that didn't fit into his rational logic, he would simply blow it off and go on his tirade about DBT's.

My only real complaint was that if there was a discussion about wires he would hijack the thread and harass until people just quit the discussion.

Well anyway, I really don't miss him. Once the discussion went beyond DBT's and wire tests using electronic test equipment, he had nothing to offer. His mind seemed to go blank.

Yes, he would liven up the conversation, but he did this by criticizing the posts of other members of this board and starting arguments. His world was black and white and there was no room for any ideas that didn't fit his beliefs. It was his way or the highway. He had no respect for any opinion other than his own. As for myself, for a long time I quit posting here because of him. I really didn't feel like getting into a fight every time I said anything. It wouldn't surprise me if others left the board for the same reason. He did more harm than good.

As for this forum, it has quieted down a great deal over the years. From time to time, some of the best discussions I have read have come from members of this board, but for the most part, the discussion here is is rather benign. No offense guys, but when I am researching I rarely spend much time on this site. However, I love audioreview. It is a great place for lighter and less focused conversation.

---

Guilty as charged.:sad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Yet, there is a critical difference: participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials.

rw

---

Since when are the subjects of drug tests DBT's trained? They are just yer average people off the street chosen to meet certain demographics. They simpy take the drugs, report any symptoms/perceptions and subject themselves to some medical testing to prove the results.

If audiable differences between products under discussion are as significant as claimed, training is not needed. Just listen and report.

Again, if one is going to charge much, much greater for their product, or make grandiose claims about their product's superiority, over another companys product of the same functionality, one would assume that proven superiority would be an advantage.

but, for some reason, it never happens and, at least here, you can't even mention it here.

...and people wonder why this site became a virtual shadow of what it once was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Yet, there is a critical difference: participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials.

rw

---

Actually, they do in medical trials often too. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

but, for some reason, it never happens and, at least here, you can't even mention it here.

...and people wonder why this site became a virtual shadow of what it once was.

---

After about 10 months under the regime that lead to the exodus, these conversations creeped back in here.

You'll find the rules aren't enforced much differently than they were pre-purge now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

.

If audiable differences between products under discussion are as significant as claimed, training is not needed. Just listen and report.

---

I guess if you have to exert tremendous effort to hear a difference, or convince yourself you hear something, it validates some of these claims.

I have become a better critical listener over the years from my speaker building hobby and from listening to more music with better gear. If anything I feel this has helped me see past a lot of the snake oil and be a better judge of value in perceived benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

Since when are the subjects of drug tests DBT's trained? They are just yer average people off the street chosen to meet certain demographics. They simpy take the drugs, report any symptoms/perceptions and subject themselves to some medical testing to prove the results.

---

I seem to have trouble communicating my thoughts clearly for you. Your comments detail the point I am trying to make. Training and experience can, however, effect the results of audio tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

If audiable differences between products under discussion are as significant as claimed, training is not needed. Just listen and report.

---

It depends upon what you are trying to prove. If you are doing broad testing for a general audience, then training and familiarity aren't required. The kind Bose would do. If, however, you are trying to determine what differences truly exist, then I submit you need trained participants. Like using professional drivers on a test track to ascertain the true ability of a car's performance envelope. Not your grandmother. My ability to discern fine differences is greatly enhanced when I use familiar material on a familiar system. The fact that any one individual cannot tell a difference between component A and component B does not mean differences do not exist.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Actually, they do in medical trials often too. :)

---

Please explain. How does "experience" affect the outcome of a drug trial? The pharmaceutical tests my wife (who is a PharmD) tells me about do not support that notion.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

Please explain. How does "experience" affect the outcome of a drug trial? The pharmaceutical tests my wife (who is a PharmD) tells me about do not support that notion.

rw

---

Experience by patients developing tolernace to drugs over time, familiarity with administration techniques of other drugs (think inhalers and such for asthma), etc...just to name a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Experience by patients developing tolernace to drugs over time

---

That's not a developed skill. It is an unavoidable consequence of the medication. I refer to training in the sense of being able to control the outcome, not be passively affected by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

... familiarity with administration techniques of other drugs (think inhalers and such for asthma), etc...just to name a few.

---

Here again, such does not refer to the ability of one to alter the outcome beyond the very basic notion of proper delivery. Once a given amount of medication is given to a participant, can you think of any way someone could "learn" to make the results more effective?

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

That's not a developed skill. It is an unavoidable consequence of the medication. I refer to training in the sense of being able to control the outcome, not be passively affected by it.

---

Experience isn't limited to "developed skills".

Quote:

---

Here again, such does not refer to the ability of one to alter the outcome beyond the very basic notion of proper delivery. Once a given amount of medication is given to a participant, can you think of any way someone could "learn" to make the results more effective?

---

I guess if you restrict the definitions of "experience" and "training" to the narrow meanings you've responded with, and limit medical trials to drugs only, and then limit those drug trials to a chemical function of merely dosage quantity and corresponding result alone in cases where the drug's therapeutic effects can be measured objectively, then I would agree with you. Unfortuantely that would exclude a great deal of medical trials and your original post was nowhere near this detailed.

In my job I spend considerable time reviewing the results of a lot of drug and medical equipment studies by some of companies we hold in our portfolio. Believe me, patient experience and training are some of the most common reasons for misleading and misinterpreted test results in medical trials and more than a few companies and investors have lost boat loads of research money because they failed to compensate or anticipate such variables.

And, much like audio, many drug and medical trials rely heavily on subjectivity to evaluate results. (ie, degree of pain relief), so yeah, I do believe there is room for "learned" results as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

I guess if you restrict the definitions of "experience" and "training" to the narrow meanings you've responded with...

---

My point is that drug efficacy beyond proper dosing is not something one learns how to "improve".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

, and limit medical trials to drugs only

---

I responded to your examples. Broaden the scope however you please that involves the ability of the participant's experience and training to deliberately affect the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

And, much like audio, many drug and medical trials rely heavily on subjectivity to evaluate results. (ie, degree of pain relief), so yeah, I do believe there is room for "learned" results as well.

---

Fair enough. While there are always some false positives under placebo, such evaluations are not used to suggest that the participants are not experiencing that which they report. They are used to gauge efficacy especially when many tests employ objective measurements. Audio DBTs simply report the null result.

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

My point is that drug efficacy beyond proper dosing is not something one learns how to "improve".

---

I'd agree with that. My apologies for the confusion, but you'll have to admit this is a much different and more accurate statement than the broad "participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials."

Just to play devil's advocate, to relate this to audio, it's not "drug efficacy" itself that we learn to improve, but we can improve our ability to recognize therapeutic effects (i.e. ask your wife about examples of studies, or perhaps patients she knows that claimed no effect from therapy, only to notice symptoms returned when dosage stopped). In audio, it's not the actual physical properties of the sound we improve, it's our ability to recognize it...not quite apples to apples, but not that different either. In both cases our developed senses are responsible for improved results.

Quote:

---

I responded to your examples. Broaden the scope however you please that involves the ability of the participant's experience and training to deliberately affect the results.

---

I didn't broaden the scope, you narrowed it after I provided valid examples where subject experience and training can effect results in medical trials. If experience and learned ability to use senses (ie, hearing) can be included on the one hand, then the experience with or ability to use a medical apparatus, or ability to notice therapeutic results (because of better trained senses) must be fair game as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

... but you'll have to admit this is a much different and more accurate statement than the broad "participant training and experience do not affect the results with medical trials."

---

You didn't know what I was thinking? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

...but we can improve our ability to recognize therapeutic effects (i.e. ask your wife about examples of studies, or perhaps patients she knows that claimed no effect from therapy, only to notice symptoms returned when dosage stopped).

---

I'm confused by this example. They begin with symptoms before the trials, then later under medication, report the symptoms are still there and finally - the symptoms "returned"? How did they return if they never left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

...then the experience with or ability to use a medical apparatus, or ability to notice therapeutic results (because of better trained senses) must be fair game as well.

---

The difference is in degrees. My presumption is that the training how to properly use a medical apparatus takes - what minutes? hours? a day? Do many medical trials require complex procedures that skew the results? Training your "mental memory" as Siggy Linkwitz calls it for audio, on the other hand, can take years. Trained listeners spend far more time refining their skills then patients figuring out how take a medication or use an apparatus. I am aware of patient compliance issues where some claim they took medication - when in fact they never did. But that's a different topic...

rw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

I'm confused by this example. They begin with symptoms before the trials, then later under medication, report the symptoms are still there and finally - the symptoms "returned"? How did they return if they never left?

---

Me too, typed it in a hurry...Forget trials for a second. I was thinking more about the purpose behind the trials - some real life. Audio DBT's test for some difference or no difference. Medical trials can be similar - patients can often report (I've read it more with anti-depressants and pain-killers) no benefits from the drug...but when they stop the drug they realize that their symptoms were alleviate a bit by the drug after all. Just not completely and they didn't realize by what minor amount until they went cold turkey again. It's not unlike the audio world where we spend great efforts to get subtle audio improvements that to the untrained novice ear might go unnoticed at first. Doesn't mean there wasn't some benefit or improvement. Only that we weren't keen enough to notice.

Quote:

---

The difference is in degrees. My presumption is that the training how to properly use a medical apparatus takes - what minutes? hours? a day? Do many medical trials require complex procedures that skew the results?
Training your "mental memory" as Siggy Linkwitz calls it for audio, on the other hand, can take years. Trained listeners spend far more time refining their skills then patients figuring out how take a medication or use an apparatus. I am aware of patient compliance issues where some claim they took medication - when in fact they never did. But that's a different topic...

---

Fair points too...all this to say DBT's aren't the end all, be all in any discipline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Me too, typed it in a hurry...Forget trials for a second. I was thinking more about the purpose behind the trials - some real life. Audio DBT's test for some difference or no difference. Medical trials can be similar - patients can often report (I've read it more with anti-depressants and pain-killers) no benefits from the drug...but when they stop the drug they realize that their symptoms were alleviate a bit by the drug after all. Just not completely and they didn't realize by what minor amount until they went cold turkey again. It's not unlike the audio world where we spend great efforts to get subtle audio improvements that to the untrained novice ear might go unnoticed at first. Doesn't mean there wasn't some benefit or improvement. Only that we weren't keen enough to notice..

---

Kind of like having a well calibrated sub? You don't notice when it comes on, but you do when it's turned off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markw

They rely very, very heavily on DBT's in their evaluations. But, to mention them for audio applications, particularly here, here is an anathema

---

Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

That is not true. Like AA, such discussions were encouraged - but in the Audio Lab.

rw

---

Yes it was moved to a separate section but those guys left because it was banned in the other forums - namely the cable forum. Either way this forum lost a large number of continual posters and a lot of back and forth discussion - I can go several days here without anyone posting anything in the amp or source forum.

Although it also served to get rid of the "rain on my parade" kind of things those guys pulled. If Person A has read and understood the pro DBT stance and chooses to buy his pricey cable it is not necessary to have some putz come in and tell him yet again the same arguments in a snide way. All those years and the cable gurus argued and read all those mrtycrft posts and I bet ZERO ever changed their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.

---

Nothing is 100%. You knew that to begin with, didn't you?

Odds are that some small percentage of people may going to have an adverse reaction to some drug. A small percentage of people react to peanuts, shellfish and everything else.

The difference is that a great many people do benefit from the positive resuts of the products tested. Assuming the same testing is done, can the same be said for cables?

The main point about a DBT is justifiably to get rid of sight bias and volume level bias. I think most people would agree that you don't want to be tricked into believing something is better because it looks better or is heavier or comes from a name brand you like more than another name brand. And you don't want to be tricked by the munson effect into believing that the louder unit is better. That does not really require a DBT though. Hi-Fi Choice gets rid of both of those biases and does not introduce stress test environments. It serves the goal of eliminating volume and sight bias for this task. And they have interesting results - often with industry people in the listening sessions.

And the DBT traditional that people like like to use low trials 10 or 16 and draw early conclusions to support, presumably, what they want it to support. A score of 9/10 is needed to be deemed selecting A or B better than chance to a statistical significance that meets the .05 level. They are quick to point out that if you get less than 9/10 then you merely guessed and that you can't distinguish A from B.

What they don't tell you, because they're engineers not psychologists, is that high trials are ALWAYS required for this kind of testing. They modeled their tests on medical trials not psychological trials and this fundamental error is either due to laziness or plain ignorance. A score of 6/10 ten times with one miss for a total score of 59/100 meets significance to the .05 level as well but reduces both type I and type II errors.

Logic - if you have high numbers of trials you can be more sure that your results paint a clearer picture and that you gave the listener every opportunity. 59/100 means you differentiated difference every bit as capably as the guy who scored 9/10. But wait the lazy ignorant group of testers would laugh you out of the room with a 6/10 score.

That is the thing that bothers me most of all. It's one thing to disagree about the value or "validity" of the DBT but at least pitch your tent on good high trial DBT's with one listener. Even the oakland university site that always gets posted is hugely faulty. They take ten people and ADD their scores together. So if I go 9/10 and you got 1/10 then the score is 10/20 and they think they proved that no one heard a difference. You don't add people's scores together??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Yes and you still get Viox, Lipitor, and piles of other drugs that kill people. Mounting drug test style DBTs unchanged for Psychological tests is problematic - at least in terms of drawing a conclusion. With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.

---

Vioxx almost killed my mother, in her eighties, when it caused an extreme blood preasure spike.

On the other hand, I've been taking Lipitor for 7-8 years with no sign of adverse effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

With drugs it either works or it doesn't - there is no subjective Q&A or "interpretation" made by the brain.

---

Horse poop...much like the snake-oil in the alternative medicine industry (not all is snake-oil but there's a lot out there), a lot of patients will swear by drug x, or the degree to which it works. There's is ample subjective interpretation of therapeutic benefits of drugs. Designers of brand name drugs prey on this subjectivity to keep people from buying chemically identical generics with proven equal efficacy.

Yes, at the biochemical level the drug either reacts or doesn't, but interpreation of the results vary tremendously.

Krikey, there was a war, a purge and an exodus and I missed it? Man oh man I've got to pay more attention. There is a delicate balance all moderators and sites have to walk between permitting free expression and allowing the inmates to take over the asylum. I've left several sites because the "laissais faire" attitude of the mods allowed the children to run rampant in an almost "Lord of the Flies" manner. The internet in some ways lures, promotes and enables bullies because there are no consequences other than banning and that's often ineffectual.

While I miss some of the old guard I firmly believe that sites wax and wane like all things and AA still gets it's fair share of hits. I can accept any opinion as long as it's an "informed" opinion.

Da Worfster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bubbagump

They livened up the forum. CE with his Legacy Foci (one in one room, the other in another) and Mtrycraft's line of reason vs the audiophile insane clown posse?

---

I don't quite remember CE but when I first joined Audioreview, I spent close to 2 years sparring with Mtrycraft along with the posse. It did seem amazing that he based all of his stance on white papers and listening to what in todays world of Audio would be a Transistor Radio tuned into AM.

I took a good beating from time to time but the Cable forum was kinda fun back then. I did make several friends here from that time before I switched to posting in the music forum.

I am now using Synergistic Research cables and would love for him to hear the difference between them and my old Tara Labs wires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E-Stat

That is not true. Like AA, such discussions were encouraged - but in the Audio Lab.

rw

---

Oh yeah, go and segregate the scientific discussions to a ghetto. The place to have many of them is on the forums ask questions about what makes a difference to the sound--and we have no good evidence that changing interconnects makes an audible difference, except for phono cables (some phono cartridges are sensitive to capacitance), or speaker cables in high fidelity configurations (not too long, not too small a gauge).

I refused to participate in discussions in The Audio Lab ghetto (I'm not the only, and John Escallier told me the same thing), and since the policy was not to engage in audibility discussions in other forums, my participation at Audio Review diminished considerably. I see little reason to increase it now.

Mtrycrafts, as you have noted, is very active over at Audioholics, where they appreciate his knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

Oh yeah, go and segregate the scientific discussions to a ghetto.

---

You certainly spend a lot of time in the "ghetto" over at AA. About fifty posts in the past couple of days. Hmmm. Apparently there's a difference to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pat D

... where they appreciate his knowledge.

---

If not his utter lack of experience. He is, however, quick to the draw with dated bibliographies of limited scope! Just for grins, do a search over there on any number of the highest performance components. Zero results. :)

rw