|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.92.120
In Reply to: RE: should be simple posted by unclestu on September 03, 2014 at 20:46:37
... is the simple fact that *some* who claim to hear "this issue" cannot understand why the issue is not taken seriously by those don't claim to hear it. LOL... you seem to be the only one here who would "project" your beliefs onto those who don't hear things as you do.No one participating in or referenced in this thread (not Toole, not Atkinson, and certainly not me) who has NOT consistently heard what you hear has ever claimed that "no one else" can hear it just because they can't, AFAIK. Everyone I know believes that it's audibility is limited to those in the MINORITY. Most of us acknowledge that "coherence" is a worthy goal so long as the pursuit of such does not compromise excellent overall performance. In this case, the "minority" includes YOU...
Get over it, because "serious listeners" do not necessarily hear things the same way. The majority of listeners ("serious" or otherwise) seem to have different listening preferences than you do. That's what the evidence shows, and that's why you'll find so many different types of gear preferences - here, there, and everywhere.
So remember: Wishful thinking, exaggerated depictions, and snarky responses cannot replace facts. The majority of scientific and/or anecdotal evidence that I'm aware of seems to be saying something different than what you are saying.
Edits: 09/04/14Follow Ups:
Genungo, it's always important to maintain a distinction between objective and subjective.
Whether or not someone can hear some kind of change isn't the issue. Some people hear changes that other people don't. That's not new. Also, some people prefer a sound quality which is different from the originally recorded sound. That is subjective - it's personal 'taste'.
In this discussion, the fact is that one polarity is correct and the other is not. Either the waveform is the same as when it was received by the microphone, or, it's upside down. The whole discussion about whether or not a piano or a snare drum or a French horn or a marimba or an orchestra or whatever has a leading compression or rarifaction is the wrong way to look at the question. The question is, does the loudspeaker produce a compression when the microphone received a compression?
A SECONDARY question can be whether or not a particular individual can hear the difference, but that should not deter us from pursuing good science and doing our best to "get it right".
:)
Do you agree with John Atkinson and others who claim that "doing our best to get IT right" ("focusing on time domain behavior") will sometimes cause us to get other, more important aspects (amplitude response, dispersion characteristics) of speaker performance wrong?And, please understand that I have nothing against "perfect polarity", nor am I trying to deny that a sonic wave naturally travels outward and away from it's source. "Nature" is not the issue here...
But, if we sometimes have to sacrifice the smaller thing for the greater thing in loudspeaker design - if we must sacrifice something - shouldn't it be the thing that the minority of listeners will miss rather then the thing which the majority of listeners will miss?
Do your speakers exhibit perfect "time domain behavior"? If not, please explain why you think that the designers chose to leave that aspect of performance *undone*, or even *underdone*.
I hope that you are seeing the point I'm trying to make here.
Edits: 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14 09/04/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: