Date:         Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:35:25 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Aren't recordings original sources?
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:50 PM, David Breneman
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> --- On Thu, 10/16/08, Clark Johnsen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >  Richard L. Hess wrote:
>
> > > Considering the variability of the power wiring in the
> > > walls, the last six feet has only a limited opportunity
> > > to make any change to the sound of the component,
> >
> > Correction: We're talking the *first* six feet here.
> > That's what the gear sees.
>
> Are you proposing that the stretch of wiring from the
> generator to the outlet in the wall is not "seen" by
> the component?  Why not?


Where'd I say that? I was simply drawing a distinction between "first" and
"last", since someone brought the latter up as (he thought) a
counter-argument.

>
>
> > > the minor parameter variations that typical
> > > differences in power cords
> > > present are far less than the variations in building
> > > wiring.
> >
> > Again, an assertion. Sorry, but I'm not going to let
> > you do the argument from authority.
>
> Well, *somebody* needs to speak with authority in this
> discussion.  To make the claim, that the vast majority
> of influence that electrical power makes over the sound
> quality put out by an audio device is made by the
> power cord, is an extraordinary claim.


It would be indeed. In fact, no one claimed that. The original writer spoke
of "potential", not certainty, doubtless to emphasize the importance of this
connection to those who blithely dismiss it, as they do here.


>   It would be
> interesting to hear something that might back up
> that assertion.  When someone makes an extraordinary
> claim, it's not sufficient for him to to simply say
> "Prove me wrong."  That's nothing but sophistry.


Sir, the original assertion to which I took exception was Wiki's, about "the
truthfulness of the marketing" and "[the lack of] testable claims". Do you
not find *those *claims extraordinary?  But if not, they certainly were not
triangulated, much as I have tried to get the Wikis to do so.

clark