|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.130.96.11
In Reply to: RE: Ridiculous posted by op48no1 on August 13, 2014 at 14:25:54
me I only played on the collegiate level for a decade. That being said being a musician has nothing to do with this discussion. After all , I know of several tone deaf musicians, well they are not very good but they still call themselves musicians..My point is that if changing a wire shows more detail then I am all for it. I don't care if you find this perpetual chase too fatiguing and confusing, After all, wasn't it the great Pablo Casals who when asked why he was practicing even at age 90, replied that he thought he was improving?
The fact that you have given up says a lot about you. Do you bother to practice any more, or do you take classes or even master classes? repetition and incrementally small gains are an important part of any performer, as you should well know.
Edits: 08/13/14 08/13/14Follow Ups:
The subject was whether or not the reported subjective differences between short lengths of different kinds of wires, and other similar tweaks, are due to actual physical changes in the sound, or to perceptual bias in the listeners.
You have changed the subject to the question of whether or not subtlety in music is important. That's quite a leap.
Of course subtlety is important. Since you have experience with master classes, then you know that the feedback and advice given by the teacher are concrete and specific: changes in timing, dynamics, phrases, voicing, and so on. All of these things are real, easily perceived, and if you were to capture the performances electronically, measurable.
The differences between a good and an outstanding performance are not so subtle that one has to strain to hear them. But even if they escape the notice of a casual listener, there can be no doubt that the sound itself is different. Moreover, we understand and accept that, by varying the pressure, velocity, and timing of the motion of his hands and fingers, the musician makes these changes happen. There is no mystery or dispute. There is no highly speculative and logically dubious chain of cause and effect at work here. No crisis in the accepted laws of nature or perception.
The only mystery (and I think science has made some progress on this as well) is why the listener judges some performances to be better than others, even if the basic presentation of the notes is the same. This is a very interesting question that has almost nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Somehow, you are trying to make a logical leap here, and it falls flat on its face. The reasoning goes something like this:
1) Subtle differences in the way music is played are crucial to the subjective value of a performance.
2) There is no disagreement among listeners that some performances are clearly better than others.
3) I plainly hear a difference in the sound of [some tweak].
4) Therefore, this tweak is "real."
5) Moreover, [some pseudoscientific blather] proves my perceptions are valid.
It's hard for me to go further with this, and no doubt a waste of time, because (as is always the case) nothing you have said in reply to my original posting in this thread comes close to addressing the actual points I made. Nor is there any perceivable logic to your reply. I'm at a loss.
As far as I'm concerned, you might as well have said, "The differences are real because... BENGHAZI!!!"
Let me say this in conclusion. I think a lot of audiophiles have this vicarious desire to experience the sense of artistic creation that a real performer does. So, somehow, they conflate the act of building and tweaking a stereo system with that of actually playing an instrument or even composing music. I think it's nonsense. I can't imagine, if you asked a competent performer or, better yet, music teacher, how to improve one's music artistry that they would tell you to waste your time on meaningless voodoo of the sort that audiophiles hold in such high esteem.
Can you imagine? If I put quarters on the corners of my piano and hung a bag of crystals inside, I could suddenly play like Danill Trifonov?
-Henry
My five inch speaker in my truck has pretty good reproduction of music. I can get the gist of pretty much any performance, pop or classical. Is that good enough? Does it enable me to distinguish Perlman playing his Strad or his Guarneri? When I listen to Elizabeth Schwarzkopf, can I her her breath control and throat tones ? No I can't. They are not necessary for enjoyment but I find that it all adds to an appreciation for the skill of the performer, though.
Why do you even bother to read posts on this asylum (or any audio forum for that matter, if you no longer wish to experiment or explore audio options? If you are satisfied with what you have so be it. No one is going to argue that point. I do think it is hubris to impose your view of being good enough on everyone else, though. If you notice I did post about doing DBT but I did not post any conclusions, BTW (which might surprise you).
Going even further, why bother buying a Steinway or Fazioli, if you aren't of the caliber of the great soloists? Is buying a better instrument going to improve your playing skill? Does owning a Steinway make you a virtuoso? Maybe you'd better off with a simple Yamaha electronic keyboard and just practicing.....
The whole reason many of us are in audio and this never ending quest for perfection is the capture of the nuance and the subtlety. I don't play piano but there are moments when I can hear the pedal action clearly and that adds a certain greater dimension to the performer's rendition, IMHE.
If you say that that is unimportant to you, then fine: so be it. I can not argue subjective taste. But when seemingly little tweaks can make what I consider important sonic changes, why even bother to post a disagreement, particularly if such changes are what you deem subtle at best.
Being human we all have different standards and different goals.
C'est la vie....
Again, irrelevant.
The five-inch speaker in your truck isn't hi-fi. The differences between your truck speaker and a real hi-fi system are both audible and measurable.
The differences between two inches of silver and copper wire are neither audible nor measurable.
I have played both Steinways and Faziolis. So much of how a piano sounds is attributable to its prep, but as much as I dislike Steinway the company, I do enjoy their grands. Especially older ones with a lot of character. I have played Steinways I hated, though. The Fazioli didn't impress me. But it was new on the showroom floor and probably hadn't been voiced. IMHO, it's a piano for rich bastards who want to show off their wealth.
A good instrument makes any performer better, regardless of his or her skill. The consistency, level of control, and range of expression means you get more music for less effort.
How any of this bears on the current topic escapes me.
The "never ending quest for nuance and subtlety" is just one rather self-aggrandizing standard that you seek to impose on me and anyone else who doesn't share your hyperbolic vision of what it means to be an audio enthusiast. I might ask you in return why you even bother to read posts on this forum if you have no interest in exploring the objective reality of audio engineering?
I'm not even sure I remember what this argument is about. Honestly, it's drivel.
Go in peace, Uncle Stu.
-Henry
Uncle Stu, you should read the Dennett paper Mark linked.
Even if you don't understand a word of it (and I admit, I probably understand only every other word of it) you should come away convinced that any conclusion you hope to derive about the properties of the outside world from what you experience with your senses is hopelessly simplistic.
In a nutshell: To really get to the bottom of the Audiophile Debate opens a can of worms so large that only a genius philosopher -- or an idiot -- could claim to make sense of it.
-Henry
Sounds like a Western rehashing of Eastern philosophies, of which i studied for many years (decades, actually). Nature of reality and all that c*#p. I'll remember or maybe you ought to remember all that while enjoying a meal at a five star restaurant w the appropriate wine.
It's all an illusion.....
LOL!!!
It's been a long time since I took any eastern religion classes, but I don't see any of that in Dennett's paper. Nor do I see him arguing that reality is an illusion. I think, maybe, you read the first paragraph of the paper, made up your mind, and quit right there.
I thought, on first reading, that Dennett's argument as it relates to the discussion here is that we simply can't trust our senses to inform us of the properties of objects in the outside world. But that's not the point at all. Dennett is taking to task a particular philosophical model of perception that essentially portrays perception as private, indescribable models that exist inside our minds. We can (it is supposed) study and understand these models ( "qualia" ) but never share them with others.
Dennett argues, through a series of thought experiments, that no amount of introspection will ever allow us to understand our qualia , that in fact qualia don't exist at all. But he does not go on to conclude that our senses are deluded or that reality is illusional. The argument is much more fundamental than that. It's really about a philosophical explanation of consciousness.
I don't think this paper offers any position that would help us decide whether or not your perceptions of the sounds of different wires are "real." In fact, I get the impression from his discussion of "property detectors" near the end of the paper that Dennett would say that we are actually better equipped to characterize and share our perceptions than traditional philosophers would allow. So, in a way, I see the paper as being mildly supportive of the golden-ear position. But only by a smidgeon.
Here's the thing. It says something that so many philosophers can spend so much time and so many pages trying and failing to come to an agreement about the nature of perception. This says to me that any glib argument you, or Jeff, or J. Gordon Holt might make about the obviousness of subjective perception as it applies to hi-fi has got to be wholly inadequate. If you are not prepared to grapple deeply with questions of the nature of perception and consciousness, then you have no business claiming authority in the Audiophile Debate.
In short, I am not prepared to say whether or not the things you say you hear are "real." I can't even tell you what it means to "hear." So on that basis alone, because you don't even try to answer these questions, I find your claims and positions to be inadequate.
How's that for a blanket brush-off?
-Henry
Dennett is an active practitioner of the the Western analytical tradition, having studied under Ryle.If you were familiar with the field, you would know this from his use of "to Quine" as a verb, an obvious reference to WVO Quine, another of the great minds of Western philosophy.
If you are not familiar with the field, to dismiss one of its standout practitioners as not worth reading doesn't encourage anyone to take what you write seriously.
Mark Kelly
Edits: 08/13/14
we are writing here about a length of wire, It certainly isn't rocket science. What is so difficult about actually trying it?
To sum up, thus far:
1. There are those posters who obviously have not even bothered to try a wire change. However their superior intellect reveals that it can not have an effect, or, if it does, the effect is largely negligible, a very subjective position in my thinking.
2. Then there are those who tire of the "audio game" and discount any difference, if any, which can be discerned. Strange, how they consider their systems high end, though. I do make a difference between high end and high performance, BTW.
3. Then there are those who want to intellectualize it even further and drag in philosophical concepts into the fray.
All fine and dandy, but the truth is human sensory perceptions are the basis for humanity's view of the world. It is the basis for engineering and ultimately for science. We can argue the audibility of certain sonic attributes. But the variation in human individuals is enormous. Some senses can be trained but some senses may never be fully impressed on certain individuals.
But for the great unwashed (meaning me), perhaps you can elucidate exactly what Dennett's writings reveal about audio and in particular to this thread.
I feel that the tread is really unnecessary. You hear it or you do not. QED.If you haven't tried it, then it is ridiculous to state an opinion and then present it as a fact.
of course YMMV and FWIW
PS In regards to much of Dennett's views, I do believe the next two decades will be very telling. Some of it reflects on Gould and even perhaps Dawkins, but the termination of Doublya terms has opened many new venues in molecular biology, and in particular DNA analysis. There are preliminary indications that some research may revolutionize our thought processes in regards to certain fundamental cultural ideas.
Just my opinion, of course, and one gained from long conversations with a couple of molecular biologists doing research in the field. Some aspects, they point out, are pretty much verboten, primarily because it may contradict fundamental concepts in the field of, say, religion. Some are simply economic driven, too.
Certainly his view that religion will die out in 25 years is certainly not borne out in the Mid East or in the Christian right wing movements here in the US. But then, I digress, this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, unless you believe that being an audiophile is a religion ( or maybe it is, hmmmm.....)
Is this really the best you can do?Cripes.
Edit: For god's sake, Stu! Say something truly insightful that bowls me over and gives me something worthwhile and new to think about.
-Henry
Edits: 08/14/14 08/14/14
If the shoe fits........
You get me there, Stu.
Seriously, what I'm feeling right now with respect to this discussion is just frustration and disappointment that you're, well, just an extremely boring person to argue with.
I know you're not impressed with me, and I'm definitely not impressed with you. The difference is, I have something to say, and you don't. Not really.
Why don't you just say it's a matter of faith and drop it?
Are you really that lacking in curiosity?
-Henry
Henry, I took your words. at face value as I assume you do edit your posts.
As for lacking in curiosity, thus far I seem to be the only one to have actually tried different wires.
In several posts, in this thread, I had stated that an opinion can not be argued with. Also I have pointed out that because human sensitivities differ, any one claiming to have tried a wire change and not heard a difference can not be argued with either.
To that end, I am acceptable of differing opinions. But to say I can not hear a difference is something else and to admit to that would be a falsehood.
We can talk about philosophies, but the truth is what is important is purely up to the individual. It is subjective. Measurements can be great but ultimately the only thing important is how the sound suits your tastes and music. after all that is the reason why we all listen to music in th first place.
If you are happy where you're at That is fine. I can not quibble with that and I have said so before.Your system is not my system, however, and whenever I listen to live, unamplified music, there is a certain quality I am always seeking within my system, particularly so if I am on stage next to the performer. Not everyone wants that however, and I can allow for that.
To paraphrase your earlier comment:
Go in Peace.
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: