Using battery power to go off the City's power grid

Arguing and winning is what the ego does. How are you helping anyone by your words? Love does not care about winning.....Love simply cares about everyone.

When I was in jr. college I took a class called "marriage and family"......The very first thing the teacher did was to draw a six foot line on the chalkboard....and at the left end he wrote "ego"......on the right end he wrote "agape"......He turned around and said that the further we were to the right on this graph the more happy we would be and the more happy others would be.....I about fell off my chair. This is the bottom line......we choose to live somewhere on that line every moment. The evolution of the soul is just that.......moving to the right......or if you made the line vertical....moving upwards to the light (ever raising our vibration). We are all so blessed. We are the very light ourselves.....the light of light....share it freely with everyone.

Oh boy, another thread taken over by a futile subjective vs objective argument.

I'd only suggest vast majority here subjectivists, we like to experience things for outselves.

I can do initial experiment with Giandel for little initial outlay, lower wattage Giandel, lead acid car battery, cheapo battery charger, some cables. So, I hear improvement  or at least potential, move up, I hear nothing, end of experiment. No big loss of money, and I get to experience rather than listen only to theoreticals. I prefer experiential learning to commands from on high.

theaudioamp,

Your entire lengthy post of 8/8 11 PM is FALSE.  In particular, 

"No, any piece of equipment does not have a sound. This is Philelore and is not true."

"And I personally know lots of people who believe stuff that is absolutely not true, but that does not make them or the large amount of people who believe the same thing correct."

How do you determine the TRUTH of anything?  We are talking about whether a piece of equipment, even a single wire has a sound signature.  Inductive reasoning starts with observation, in this case listening under controlled conditions.  Most audiophiles have repeatedly heard differences in their homes.  They wouldn't spend money and keep their components if they didn't hear differences.  They don't care whether measurements corroborate their sonic evaluations.  Their repeated listening evaluations summate into the TRUTH that there are subjective differences when the measurement people cannot find technical answers.

However, the measurement people start from a stubborn bias that measurement tells the story.  They allow their bias to obliterate any listening differences they may hear.  You went into Jay's two videos with a bias to confirm your belief that there are no differences between the two Stromtanks.  Later, you admitted that there are differences and you heard them, but YT flaws could not allow you to draw the obvious conclusions by everyone else who listened and found the S2500 was far superior.

Next point.  You said, "A good medical doctor will listen, but they will also try to understand enough about the drug to know whether the claimed side effect is remotely possible because not all side effects will be possible."  This shows how little you know about clinical practice.  The typical objectivist academic doctor thinks he knows what is possible or impossible, but he bases his beliefs on published studies in academic journals.  If a patient tells him something that he has not read in journals, he says there is no evidence for the patient's claim.  TOTALLY WRONG.  There IS evidence, albeit unpublished, but the dumb doctor is not open minded enough to listen to his patient.  The doctor thinks he knows it all, but sometimes the patient knows better.  Many excellent clinicians I admire write dedications in their books to patients who have taught them things, and they are grateful to their patients for that.

My conclusion is that either your listening skills are poor, OR more likely you have an agenda bias to interfere with your good hearing ability if it actually is intact.  More importantly, you are not open minded enough to trust the ears of people who know there are differences.  These differences are not published in academic engineering journals with double blind studies.  You claim that only double blind experiments are valid.  That shows you have the mindset of that dumb doctor.

sns,

Correct.

You start off with two false premises, and use that to arrive at a whole litany of false conclusions:

How do you determine the TRUTH of anything? We are talking about whether a piece of equipment, even a single wire has a sound signature. Inductive reasoning starts with observation, in this case listening under controlled conditions. Most audiophiles have repeatedly heard differences in their homes. They wouldn’t spend money and keep their components if they didn’t hear differences.

False assumptions:

- Ad hoc listening in the home is not remotely controlled

- Perceiving you hear a change is not remotely the same thing as there being a change. As a doctor, you should know this. How much you slept, how much caffeine you had, how comfortable you are in that chair, none of which changes the sound, will change your perception of the sound

- They wouldn’t spend money and keep their components if they didn’t hear differences. ---- There are a ton of things that people absolutely "swear by" that are absolutely not true. Heck, some of them violate fundamental laws of physics, not just common sense. Many of these things people continue to believe in and spent money on. As a doctor, you can certainly (I hope) recognize homepathic solutions as an example of this (something diluted to where the original molecule can no longer exist beyond a slight statistic probability).

Continued false assumptions:

- However, the measurement people start from a stubborn bias that measurement tells the story.

No, engineers and scientists start with the result of listening tests done in controlled circumstances using idealized stimulus that will maximize the ability of us humans to hear differences (or not). Out of an abundance of caution, they will normally use these results as a baseline of what is potentially audible, even though tests with real music show the limits of audibility of many of the things discussed as 20, 40, even 60db higher.

MORE

- "A good medical doctor will listen, but they will also try to understand enough about the drug to know whether the claimed side effect is remotely possible because not all side effects will be possible." This shows how little you know about clinical practice.

I specifically stated "a good doctor" and I am well aware of how and why the medical profession often fails at diagnosis. However, this was also a logic trap with two specific traps. You failed to acknowledge that some side effects are impossible, no matter what the patient claims, and by simply accepting them, you are just as bad as those other doctors you don’t like because you are ignoring their could be another as yet undiagnosed reason. That is what is called a bias trap. The other trap is your expectation that I, and we can assume others, accept your expertise with items of a medical nature as superior, while you try to tell me, who obviously has more experience in this area (including listening), that I am wrong based on ad-hoc reports and feelings.

And you finish with the Coup de grâce, this little diddy, far more indicative of your bias and mine. I could state the under pinnings of why you state something like this, but I see no point.

My conclusion is that either your listening skills are poor, OR more likely you have an agenda bias to interfere with your good hearing ability if it actually is intact.