|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.19.76.104
In Reply to: RE: I don't think so posted by Presto on November 11, 2012 at 22:19:39
"I've always maintained that someone who pays to have their imagination sold back to them is insane."
This happens every time we go to a theater or concert, or at least we hope it's going to happen. He do have to contribute the price of a ticket and the "willing suspension of disbelief."
"I believe that you can't use psychic energy to make stereos sound better. But you CAN use PSYCHOLOGICAL tricks to do it."
This seems like a distinction without a difference.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
If these products are supposed to put the listener in a better frame of mind instead of positively impacting the train of pressure waves reaching the listener's ears - then they should be advertised, sold, and otherwise endorsed as such.
Edits: 11/13/12
You carp about small amounts of phase shifts. Ever look at Stereophile's impulse test results for speakers? The differences you mention are negligible compared to the end result coming out of many speaker systems
When JA and his flock of reviewers can ignore such obvious issues, there is ample reason why he can state that measurements is not an important parameter. For you to quote him after all your posturing, is a laugh.
Stu
I am against people using "fake engineering speak" to describe what something DOES when that something it "does" is a) not able to be substantiated or b) is just complete nonsense.
These types of things should be reported.
But if all they say is "use my cable supports, they make your stereo sound better." well, if the causality of the PERCEPTION of better sound simply lies in suggestion (placebo effect), it's irrelevant because if the user PERCIEVES an improvement, they did get what they paid for.
If a pharmacy charges you $10 for a sugar pill but it's been making your heacaches go away, do you get your money back because it was a sugar pill? Or do you happily pay because your headache went away.
This argument/discussion is a philosophical one because the philosophy transcends the usual 'subjectivist/objectivist' debate. The latter debate is two groups with different agendas who believe they have the SAME agenda making them BOTH wrong. Wrong to be arguing that is.
Each group is, in essence, using equipment to reproduce audio in different ways for different things. For the objectivist, the "assembled final system, in room" is an engineered solution of sorts, and it's performance is what leads to a pleasurable listening experience. The subjectivist uses a more "artisan" approach, and uses "try it and see" methods which may have no more validity or explanation other than "that looks pretty" or "it's expensive - it must work" or "so and so said it made an improvement".
I am not sure I see any reason to argue with someone who openly admits that paying for the placebo effect is fine, as I would not want to waste time with someone like Atkinson if he believes what he is quoted as saying there. Not out of malice or disrespect, just because that person and I share slightly different belief systems.
I've seen subjectivists and objectivists in the same room both agreeing that a system sounded damned good and neither camp took any measurements.
It's actually often the objectivists who make assertions about the value of measurements and they do not always do them themselves. One thing is for certain, I don't think too many subjectivists are secretly doing measurements or reading up on a library of specifications.
Getting a paint to match a paint chip is engineering. Using that paint to create pleasing artwork is not an engineered solution, but relied on engineering to get the "right" color and to provide an artists with repeatable results, like the ability to buy more of the exact same color!
Gotta get some work done now...
Cheers,
PResto
"THEY ARE PRESENTED IN A FALSE MANNER AS LEGITIMATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUND OF A SOUND REPRODUCTION SYSTEM - FALSE ADVERTISING."
You view the "audio system" as somehow separate from the listener. I do not.
I have no problem suing manufacturers, distributors and vendors for fraud if they make specific claims that, narrowly read, are false. Most marketing literature is carefully written so that vendors won't liable for fraud. However, in the end, it's best to rely on caveat emptor . I'll shed no tears for a foolish rich man who gives his money to a con man. I figure that he probably got his money through some shady means in the first place, given that he's a fool.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
... a rich guy buys some voodoo stands that in addition to doing not what they purport to do at all, hold up the equipment nicely and add to the AESTHETIC of the room? Is not aesthetic of the room important. C'mon guys. Custom room professionally finished with task lighting and nice floor coverings versus a rag-tag partially finished basement area with a cheap throw-rug over the concrete floor, CDs and junk everywhere and warehouse style two-lamp fluorescent fixtures on bare joists hooked up with lamp cord? I've heard systems in rooms like the latter. The former room is just more fun to listen in. Part of the concert experience is the glamor and glitz of the hall, and the velvet seats and sexy lighting.
Enjoying art is not a science experiment or lab. It's a human experience. The aesthetic - the perception. It's all part of it. Poorly engineered audio equipment or a bad room with wicked bass nodes is not going to help. But other seemingly important specifications and design goals may become lost in translation.
I spend a lot of time making speakers adhere to rather strict design goals. Some sound very nice at the end, as a properly engineered speaker should. But if someone does not like that speaker, do I lambast them for having a preference for something other than "X transfer function" or do I realize that people have different references, different hearing curves and simply different preferences?
You can't engineer the human factor out of human beings.
Nor can you have a single formula for "correct" that fits everyone when it comes to an aesthetic experience.
Cheers,
Presto
I lump attempts at mind games, hypnosis, psychiatric therapy, drug use, and surgery to alter the brain, ear, or head transfer function as potential aspects impacting the "sound experience" that exist OUTSIDE the realm of the "audio system".
Edits: 11/13/12
Prophead is the preferred forum for debates between subjectivists and objectivists. I consider myself both. So I guess that makes me crazy. :-)
Frequent posting in Isolation? 34 posts in 4 years is frequent?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
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: