|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.32.160.56
In Reply to: RE: Since you haven't followed the discussion . . . posted by Pat D on June 30, 2010 at 18:36:02
Pat, I've been following right from the start. That I haven't been posting in the thread doesn't mean I haven't been "following the discussion." You, our self-avowed expert in logic and language, ought to know that. Your retorts seem to have lost a bit of their intellectual force recently. Are you OK?
If you wish to claim that carcass "totally misrepresented" Olive's position, then first you ought to directly quote from Carcass rather than paraphrase. Your own modifications to Carcass' sentences are a change in meaning not implied by the poster. Then secondly show how Carcass' statements do not represent Olive's position. You don't do that. You only claim it. Maybe I'll call that an appeal to your own authority, but whatever it is, it doesn't work. Typing "NOT" after a phrase only lowers this "discussion" that I haven't been "following" to the level of schoolyard taunts.
There may be interpretive differences between what Carcass wrote and what Olive intended, though I would hardly characterize the difference as "totally misrepresented." There's plenty to debate there without resorting to calling someone out on his English usage, particularly when your own is quite poor (at least in your last post).
Follow Ups:
Sean Olive, as quoted by carcass93
"I still listen to 2-channel stereo music, but it's seldom listened to through 2 speakers: it's listened through 5 to 7 channels via an up-mixer like Logic 7. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction. I'd rather be in the concert hall listening to Bach that looking through a window into the concert hall."
carcass93
"After reading the passage from my original post, where his stereo has no center fill, practically no sweet spot, and no sense of envelopment and spaciousness, I can begin to understand why one would want to test in mono."
Sean Olive's text seems pretty clear to me, except that c93 did not place it in any context. c93's characterization above is a total misrepresentation of what Sean Olive said.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
You are so completely off-base that it is sad rather than laughable. I really used to think that at least you'd put up a good argument. Those days seem long lost.
The "context" which Carcass omits is complete in Olive's post. That "context" makes the meaning of "...gives me a center channel (missing in stereo)..." very clear, and guess what? I think you are wrong in your interpretation.
What's more, even if Carcass was stretching it a bit in the "center channel" issue, stretching one out of three of the points while getting the other two spot-on is hardly a "total misrepresentation."
You have grossly misrepresented Carcass, it seems to me.
Or can't you tell me?
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Let's see. There were three points you brought up. One point I concede based on your absurdly pedantic reading of "center channel" vs. "center fill." Thus, it must be the other two where I think Carcass was "spot on." Point of fact, here's my quote: "What's more, even if Carcass was stretching it a bit in the "center channel" issue, stretching one out of three of the points while getting the other two spot-on is hardly a "total misrepresentation." "
Do YOU remember what they are? Here's Olive's sentence: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Sooooo anywho: the two that Carcass got spot on are: 1) sweet spot ("ALSO MISSING," meaning there is none, which ought to give you pause about the issue I'm conceding to you (note the use and context of the word "also." Study this closely)) and 2) that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is ENTIRELY DEVOID IN 2 CHANNEL REPRODUCTION. Meaning, It ain't there either. It is ENTIRELY DEVOID.
Carcass 2 clear points, 1 debatable point. Next?
Nope, you miss the subtleties the English language is capable of.
So you admit the obvious point that 2 channel stereo lacks a center channel, so c93 is flat out wrong.
Sean says with a center channel, he can get a wider sweet spot than with2 channel stereo. Again, what's your problem?
Now with the third, you change the language: it's not "that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness," it's "a" sense of envelopment and spaciousness, as found in the types of system he likes, as compared to stereo, which lacks it. But you do not seem at all interested in a fair and reasonable interpretation.
Meanwhile, you don't bother to mention c93's vicious and unfounded attacks on the qualifications of a respected audio researcher.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
"Nope, you miss the subtleties the English language is capable of."
Hardly. Your focus has been on the wrong word(s). Since you are the one who has brought up context several times, perhaps you ought to look at the other words in the sentences in question so you may construct a more thorough understanding of the intent.
"So you admit the obvious point that 2 channel stereo lacks a center channel, so c93 is flat out wrong."
I admit that a stereo sytem by definition lacks a physical center channel, but again, reading the entire paragraph quoted, and those lovely words that Olive chose to use, I suggest only that the point is nebulous enough to not merit the argument. But since you continue to press, I ask again that you read the full text to see how words are used. Please pay close attention to context. Also note how individual words are used. Sometimes the way a word is used at a later point in a paragraph can help define its use in a case where the meaning is not entirely clear.
Here's Olive's quote: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Note how he state that the "much wider sweet spot" is "also missing." Again, note the word "also" in front of "missing." The word "missing" first appears in reference to the center channel. The use of "also" means that the word "missing" has the same function in the sentence. "A much wider sweet spot" is not something one can buy along with a pair of cables and half-and-half for the morning. It is, however, a result - an effect - of the system being described. Thus, the center channel that Olive is "given" is an effect. This is clearly underscored by the very subject of the sentence itself: it is not the configuration or number of channels that gives Olive the center channel, it is "the up-mixing." Again, an effect is being described, not an object. The effect being referred to is the information that now comes from the center speaker he has added, and it is created by his "upmixing" of stereo information to be able to create the "missing" information.
So no, Carcass is not flat out wrong at all.
"Sean says with a center channel, he can get a wider sweet spot than with2 channel stereo. Again, what's your problem?"
Well Pat, I wouldn't have a problem if that was what he said. But he didn't say that. You have modified his sentence to fit your agenda, and THAT is with what I have a problem.
Here's what Sean says: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
He says that the much-wider sweet spot is "ALSO MISSING." He doesn't say it is bigger than the traditional. He says the traditional system's sweet spot is NOT THERE. AT ALL. MISSING. AWOL. And as he never defines what that sweet spot is wider than, it is not possible to understand his quantification. Had he said, "the center fill through the upmixing gives me a much wider sweet spot than the sweet spot of a traditional two-speaker set up," I wouldn't bat an eye. Funny how his choice of words creates the ambiguity. There's that subtlety of the English language for you.
"Now with the third, you change the language: it's not "that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness," it's "a" sense of envelopment and spaciousness, as found in the types of system he likes, as compared to stereo, which lacks it. But you do not seem at all interested in a fair and reasonable interpretation."
Are you serious?? Pat, I gave you the quote in its proper context. My own change of words has no effect on the substance of the argument. To claim so is disingenuous on your part. What is "fair and reasonable" about that?? Pat, meet kettle.
I can't be bothered with repeating the same thing over and over about the meaning of "a sense of...," and "devoid of." I've posted about that in this thread a couple of times already. Maybe you might consider reading those posts rather than skimming and reacting? It is clear to me that you are too pedantic to understand usage, and won't take your own advice about paying attention to the context. It doesn't really matter, as you make me laugh.
"Meanwhile, you don't bother to mention c93's vicious and unfounded attacks on the qualifications of a respected audio researcher."
Why should I? If that was your real issue with Carcass, you should have called him out on that specifically, instead of hurling your own insults back (your attack on his English). You clearly don't find the act of insult so disturbing as you throw around plenty of your own. My problem, as I described to you before, is with your attempt to replace the interpretation of rather ambiguous words and phrases with inarguable Pat-approved hypocrisy.
While the center channel for HT content is primarily used for dialogue, such is not true for music recordings. So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
rw
2 speaker stereo does not have center channel. Sean's multi-channel has a center channel.
Nothing in Sean's text denies that there can be some center fill in the stereo image in 2 channel stereo. Sean likes stereo recordings better with a center channel in his multichannel system.
If you want to know in more detail why Sean Olive prefers to listen to his multichannel system, even with stereo recordings, you should ask him. I have not said whether I agree or disagree with him on that issue, or whether I think everything he recommends is practical for me personally. I am concerned with deliberate misrepresentations of what he said.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Take two:
So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
Nothing in Sean's text denies that there can be some center fill in the stereo image in 2 channel stereo...
No, that is the incorrect assumption you made that C93 mis-characterized Olive's intent.
rw
I have never denied that a center channel has something to do with center fill. Some people with multichannel systems prefer to do without a center channel, like Eysespy, and some prefer to have one, like Sean Olive.
You are now subtly change the issue to a "needing a center channel."
E-stat
"So, what then is the purpose for needing a center channel as Olive opines that does NOT pertain to "center fill"?
You are asking me to answer for Sean Olive, and you're quite right that I am refusing to do so. If you want to know what he thinks on the matter, you should ask him.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
I have never denied that a center channel has something to do with center fill.
Sure you did. That's what started the conversation. Here, let's review your comments again:
-no center channel = no center fill NOT!
Either a center channel has something to do with center fill or it does not. Olive found his center fill lacking in two channel and *boosted* it by adding another speaker. What else would you do with one? Like Tony, I'm done.
rw
Maybe you can begin to understand that when they appointed you to be a moderator at Audio Review, I decided to severely cut back my participation there.
__
"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: