Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
71.67.188.239
In Reply to: RE: Have you listened? posted by JLindborg on November 02, 2014 at 01:52:16
It's not a dispute, it is trying to change his attitude so he would speculate as to why things like this cap orientation issue might be, or try out such things that I can't - either because I can't afford to or because I am not a pro in the area.
We meet on this forum repeatedly with these issues and I want him to participate in the speculative process rather than play woodie. You don't advance by finding reasons not to try something that has been observed, even if engineering principles indicate it shouldn't be so. Being the pro he could speculate as to the mechanism by which the observed phenomenon came about.
I speculate constantly in order to find ways to improve the sound in my system and to figure out where something I heard might have come from so I can manipulate it to do better. I fall on my face more often than not. But I find it useful on net.
Follow Ups:
Well, You are right both in some ways.
But the final rule is that if it's just the subjective hearing, that even is not necessarily agreed upon as it is subjectivity that is the single judge, then it can never ever be a standing fact.
It must be supported by physical rules and is and will be dismissed if it will cast physical rules aside.
There might be or probably are rules/physical laws that can be added upon. That is to keep an open and sound mind.
But as David said before, breaking those is not keeping an open and sound mind.The basic FACT is that a human being can NOT be used as a factual test equipment as it is TOO prone to outside influence.
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
Edits: 11/02/14 11/02/14 11/02/14
...a difference doesn't exist (hereafter 'IICMI'), which I find to be HIGHLY arrogant. It presumes that they believe they know exactly what to measure (that is, that these measurements are reliable indicators of sonic quality, and that their machines and processes are perfect. If IICMI were true, we'd still be listening to not-very-musical-sounding amplifiers with THD&N of 0.001%.
Obviously there are sloppy AND there are careful ways to listen for differences, just as there are sloppy and careful ways to describe sonic differences*. Not all of us hi-end audiofools are golden-eared audiofools (GEAs), too, so some differences that some of us hear simply can't be heard by others, even if we want to. This 'failure' brings me to the other aspect of high arrogance--those who state ridgidly that if they can't hear it, the difference doesn't exist. I don't claim to be a GEA; I hear some differences fairly quickly, others I have to work at to hear, and some I can't hear. But I still come to conclusions on sonic quality over time, and as a result of my willingness to try to improve my system and its parts, my system is the best-overall-sounding system I've ever heard. Other GEAs I respect have told me that my system is the best they have ever heard. But I'll still be trying to improve it.
* Those I laugh at and stop reading are described as, for instance, making the music totally different or making night-and-day differences.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
Subjective evaluation, by definition, doesn't require empirical data to back up a conclusion. Yet I'm the one who's arrogant? Classic!!And it gets even better because subjective evaluation IS considered empirical data by a subjectivist. Once again, how surreal is that? :)
I also think you fellas should re-read my posts very carefully and not knee-jerk into these strawman replies.
If somebody could just explain to me the mechanism that makes a coil directional in an AC circuit, I'll stipulate and admit I'm wrong. :)
My goodness.
Dave.
Edits: 11/02/14 11/02/14
...but I don't need to understand the physics of why that can be possible. If a trusted audiofile tells us that he can hear differences in careful, controlled tests, then I believe him whether I can hear those differences or not. We're back to 'if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist' argument in the form of 'if I can't understand the physics of it, the difference can't (or at least doesn't) exist'. Don't you think that the universe's people get smarter over time? That our understanding of physics has improved over the last 5 or 500 years? That the audio industry knows how to make better-sounding...say...capacitors than they did 20 years ago? Do you really believe that sonic differences don't exist unless you, right now, understand the physics of the situation?
I believe that EVERY change to a music-reproduction system changes its sound whether I can hear it or not. What do you believe about that?
.
----------
Tin-eared audiofool, large-scale-Classical music lover, and damned-amateur fotografer.
William Bruce Cameron: "...not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
"I believe that EVERY change to a music-reproduction system changes its sound whether I can hear it or not. What do you believe about that?"
I don't believe that. :) Certain "changes" simply can not alter the sound of a system.
What if I changed/reversed the connections of my (symmetrical) speaker wires at both ends? Does that change my systems sound?
What if I changed/reversed the connections of my speaker wires at just one end? Does that change my systems sound? In that case it might because of even-order distortion in the speaker drivers since they're probably asymmetrical.
The first case is black/white but the second case is gray.
Certainly there's a gray area here between black and white on various evaluations. When you venture out of that gray area with conclusions it gets tricky. That's when guys like me might challenge you. :)
As I've said NUMEROUS times, subjective evaluations are incontrovertible and I can't argue with them. Find me a post where I said "if I can't measure it, it doesn't exist."
These strawman replies are really getting irritating. :)
Dave.
Wow! Easy there now!
I truly hope that You read what I wrote or at least understood it.
What I repeated from Davey was that anything that anyone is saying that they can hear and BREAKS the rules of physical laws should and are questioned.
What You are discussing is subjective impression and is HIGHLY questionable as it comes down to individuals and therefore I could easily state any impression I want without any jury being able or having the authority to question my impression.
This is why I took the liberty of test known speakers against each other in my own room with the same equipment.
This based on my own occupation as a calibration engineer.
I am constantly irritated when I read about some tests on some speakers that in REALITY are inferior to other that got lesser listening testimonial.
Yes, we must/almost forced to trust audio reviewers sometimes and sometimes they are actually perfectly right.
But at the same time, they are HUMAN with all that comes with just being that.
That is why impressions are not to be taken as absolute facts.
Why do You think the expression "Snake oil" is used in the audio community?
And I also said that audio has not seen its bottom line yet in measuring and will probably be adding to some physics. Who knows, right?
But breaking them? Hell no!
Cheers!
The one who succeeded was the one who didn't know it was impossible.
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: