|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.3.91.159
In Reply to: RE: Define accuracy posted by villastrangiato on November 11, 2012 at 16:56:15
From the OP -Topic - "Measurement and Perception and the Value of Each (Long Post)"
and
"In conclusion, if you do the measurements you find two facts.
1. Accuracy is cheaper.
2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive."In my original response I responded to why this is wrong and why outrageously expensive audio systems can be justified using objective measures.
You simply want to avoid discussing the topic in order to facilitate your "snake oil" offensive which based on the conclusion of the OP quoted above is really just dodging the topic.
Edits: 11/13/12Follow Ups:
What is the point of the original post? He makes those claims at the end and they're really rather outlandish.
"1. Accuracy is cheaper."
False premise. First off, define accuracy. Second, the "value" of a component has more than objective quantities, it also has subjective qualities. You may not need a 1/2" thick machined aluminum front plate on a component, but if you do, it costs more than a folded piece of tin. Third, some more expensive components ARE more accurate. If you want to take a cheap low buck CD source and compare it to a DCS stack you're welcome to.
"2. Distortion (of facts, physics and sound) is expensive."
Overgeneralization. A cable that has inductive/capacitive components that do nothing more than to color sound might be distortion. But this statement alludes to the possibility that the more something costs the more distorted it is which cannot be further from the truth. I've heard some very pricey ($25K+) studio monitors and the quick, tuneful, immediate and engaging sound I heard was no accident and it was not what I would call "distorted" at all. That said, once you get into the whole concept of "voicing" a loudspeaker, you've already left science in the rear-view mirror. But there is more to sound that facts and physics and that's what staunch objectivists are missing. Enjoyment is a state of mind. You can take two twins with "perfect" measurements and facial structure (computers have calculated who is the most beautiful woman in the world based on her facial geometry). You can have two different men meet with these women, one who has a wonderful time with her and the other, who lacks self confidence, sweats and stumbles. What happened? Both had the same "perfect" woman. Ah well, perhaps there is more to a man enjoying the company of a woman than her physical specifications. Ridiculous comparison? I think not. Man's enjoyment of music (and art in general) is as much tied up in his own pysche and outlook as it is in the performance itself.
- I admit I dislike "fake physics" in advertising.
- I admit that I would never buy an audio component or device that only has a psychological effect. I can create these affects for free myself.
- I admit that better lighting and room aesthetics improve the listening experience.
- I admit that asymmetry in the room and other obsessive compulsive concerns drive me nuts.
What's the problem here? If you think a product is snake oil don't buy it. But if you plan to "convert" someone who believes they "hear a difference" then by all means go ahead. If this same person also believes that even a purely psychological improvement is worth the price of a tweak, then who is the fool? One who is happy to pay for a placebo? Or one who argues that this is foolish?
If my doctor charged me $10 for a sugar pill and it made my headaches go away, would I be outraged at paying $10 for a half gram of sugar? Or happy that my doctor used the power of my mind to cure me while giving me a "medication" with no detrimental side effects? If he kept giving me sugar pills after my headaches persisted and the cause was a growing brain tumor, yes, I would be rather p1ssed.
So why are you so worried about who buys snake oil anyways? Unless someone comes to me and asks "Do you think this is snake oil?" why would I worry?
Every day in advertising we're being sold a better mousetrap. A better tasting diet soda. A better car. Five-hour-energy drink "PROVEN" to work by a ZILLION doctors (quick read the fine print).
I find this worry to be a waste of resources.
Cheers,
Presto
The whole OP was a Strawman, a troll, obviously. Right out of the pages of Zen and the Art Of Debunkery. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And to make matters funnier the other troll agreed with him.
The subject line actually more than hints at an interesting discussion, and his conclusion, as obtuse as it is, maintains the theme of the topic. Too bad the only fire power anyone could muster to support his comments were the attacks on tweeks and snake oil. Kind of like condemning all of mankind because some wack job shoots up a theater in Colorado.What's kind of sad* is that the "subjectivists" do such a poor job of putting these kinds of faulty thinking attention seekers in their place. As if because their listening experiences differ from what they would expect looking at specs or measurements, somehow the importance of specs and measurements are diminished. Best one could conclude it was their expectations that were out of line. Their subjective or even objectively based listening opinions are NOT less credible if one accepts the importance of measured performance. Their defensiveness reveals an ignorance of their own position......
*Actually more sad because it's easy to dismiss an audiophile with more book smarts than listening experiences, but so very off putting listening to some guy with lots of listening experiences try to monkey some psuedo-scientifical justification for it.
Edits: 11/23/12 11/23/12 11/23/12
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: