|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
In Reply to: RE: LOL! You should get your facts straight . . . posted by Pat D on June 28, 2010 at 10:53:54
.. or lack thereof.Reading your post - you haven't been able to refute ANY of my points, instead repeating "they are right, and you are wrong" ad nauseum. Main subject of that test was, in fact, listener's preference - sorry if you haven't been able to comprehend it, and not much I can do to help you with that.
I especially like "Sean Olive and Floyd Toole are greatest experts blah blah blah ..." bit, in response to the post that questions that exact "blah blah blah" aspect, with clear illustration of what exactly was done wrong.
Regarding deficiencies of stereo reproduction - I take it that your system suffers from the same drawbacks as Olive's, which is why you seemingly agree with him. Either that, or you simply don't understand what's being discussed (center channel etc.).
Lastly, despite my asking politely, you in fact DID stray into appeal to authority, again without realizing that it's that same authority that's being actively questioned here. I'm sure if we were to discuss ravings of someone downright crazy, like Arnie Krueger for instance, your main argument would still be his background as EE, and 100 years of experience in low-fi audio reproduction.
Oh, and BTW - the number of typos and errors in your post is alarming, and probably suggests that you're taking this stuff a little too personal. Why would that be?
Edits: 06/28/10Follow Ups:
I debated with myself whether to bother, but it's clear you do not know what the fallacy of arguing from an authority is. Of course, accepting arguments from authorities in their own fields is not a fallacy. It's arguing that because someone is expert in one field, that he/she must be expert is some unrelated field. Some here were shocked when someone asked jj if he would reject an opinion in psychometrics from Einstein: jj said he would because Einstein was not an expert in psychometrics whereas he (jj) is, and is familiar with other expert opinions in that field.
carcass93
"Also, what do you think about supposed deficiencies of stereo reproduction, quoted in my original post? Is your system, for instance, affected by any of these? If it's not, and supposed issues are actually non-issues in your opinion - would you call the person who made those arguments QUALIFIED to talk on the subject of high-quality sound reproduction?
Please don't stray into listing Olive's credentials or body of work, relevant or not - just a simple question, based on that, or many other like it, quotes from him."
Of course, you have just improperly excluded the things that are relevant to whether Sean Olive is an expert on high quality sound reproduction and you want to use an irrelevant criterion, to wit, whether one finds one's own stereo system deficient in certain ways.
Sure, my 2 channel stereo system doesn't have a center channel. Whether that's a deficiency depends on your point of view. According to Sean's preferences, it is, and also research going back many decades indicates a center channel can add add to realism. I've not been notably impressed with stereo played through a multichannel system, though in that system it was better than without. But then, I've not heard the system(s) Sean uses, and apparently, neither have you. His equipment seems to threaten you.
Sean thinks that a center channel can enable the stereo image to be wider, more stable, and less colored than in stereo. Stereo is an illusion which manages to sometimes be plausible, as Julian Hirsch used to say. Not having heard Sean's system, I don't know whether I would prefer to hear stereo recordings over it.
The same thing with the sense or feeling of envelopment and spaciousness. I haven't heard Sean's system so I don't know whether I would prefer it or not. You don't pretend to have heard it, either, though you obviously feel threatened by it.
Now, when you bring up whether Sean Olive is a qualified expert on high fidelity sound reproduction, this is rather more complicated than whether I am pleased with my own system or not. In fact, it is irrelevant. Sean is qualified as an expert in high fidelity sound reproduction by his training and his accomplishments in research. It's the same with a physican or a lawyer: they are qualified in virtue of their training and experience. In neither case does that come under the argument from authority fallacy.
What is clear is that Sean Olive's preference for listening to stereo recordings through upmixing to multichannel is not particularly relevant to to the question of whether he is an expert on the reproduction of sound. You have employed the fallacy of an irrelevant argument, often know as the "Red Herring" fallacy.
Why are you so threatened by scientific enquiry?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I think that's just weird.
jj is an expert on psychometric tests and is one of the inventors of lossy compression, including MP3. Based on his recent posts on various forums, e.g. the Womb Forum, he has definitely mellowed since my first encounter with him in on net.audio twenty years ago.
Check out mistake #1. (next to last slide)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There is absolutely no danger saying he is a modest man.
Wizards
He also doesn't follow instructions very well as the following posts illustrate. :)
rw
except for some of the players.
Funny, my system sounds the same too.
We should never forgive him for those lossy codecs...;)
And how is that his responsibility? He did testing, and as far as I know was never in a position to decide on what was used. Do you know something more?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
His post would lead anyone to believe that he was far more than just a tester.
And then there is this: "Until 2002, he was the primary researcher and inventor of AT&T's contributions to the MPEG-2 AAC audio coding algorithm."
maybe you should re-read his resume that you posted. He appears to be a prime player in a lot of things, and certainly not just a tester.
rw
nt
Because c93 might not know who jj is. I told a story involving jj and he might not know who he is. I think it's more jj's resume.
Do you have some problem with that?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Isn't he that old bearded deaf guy, who not only spreads nonsense about audio on HydrogenAudio forum, but also had a nerve to appear in Winer's junk video, only to further embarass himself?
If it's any consolation - he's definitely less crazy, and more well-behaved, that some other nutjobs, like said Winer or Krueger, for instance.
jj's name gets tossed about here frequently, especially by you. Its unlikely he is unknown. Particularly since he was here for so long, and had such a lame-out at the end.
It is nice to have a hero, though.
You mean when he got a new job?
jj once told me he enjoyed the controversies.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
HA! I meant, "Flame-out," not "lame-out," though they both work...
What's weird was that I posted a link to a site containing talks that jj gave just a few days ago.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
if you'd posted a link to his personal bio...just a bit too much hero worship around here already.
Have a great 4th Tony!!
"Of course, accepting arguments from authorities in their own fields is not a fallacy."
If you are arguing with me and quoting a third party as your authority, then this will be convincing to you, since you accept that authority. But why should I accept your authority? Your authority might be mistaken or corrupt. If I have not already made a survey of the field I would have no way of knowing if your authority is suitable. I could, of course, accept your choice of the third party, but then I would be accepting you as an authority on selecting authorities.
In the end we are each, individually, forced to come to our own conclusions using our own senses, our own minds and a set of authorities that we choose according to our own knowledge and belief. The argument from authority is seldom convincing to a person who makes a habit of using his own mind. In a debate, the argument from authority is almost never convincing unless both parties subscribe to this authority for the subject matter under debate. In a totalitarian society, the argument from authority does have force, but in this case it is literal force. Thus we have the authority of the EPA which declares that CO2 is a pollutant and those who do not obey will ultimately be confronted by a bunch of armed men. Similarly, we have the moderators at HA, the inquisitors who rule that posts are in violation of "TOS 8". They enforce HA's epistemological dogma by physical banishment.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
I take it you have not. Get over it.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
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: