|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: why don't you just answer the question? posted by Analog Scott on April 15, 2007 at 22:06:06:
It's the old "get it from the horse's mouth" rather than getting it second hand.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Follow Ups:
Pointing isn't answering. An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one. That is just for starters.
"An actual answer would have had a list of distortions and the thresholds of audibility for each one."To some extent, you have a point. But tubey wants to know what Peter Aczel means by "well designed amplifier" and I quite properly pointed out that he should ask Mr. Aczel, or perhaps one of his associates.
As well, tubey makes some contrary to fact assumptions in his questions. In the past, he seems to have thought that just because he puts a question, that it can and ought to be answered in the same terms in which he posed it. But not all questions make sense.
First of all, his questions about thresholds assumes there is some figure which should answer each question properly, and for that matter, you may do so, as well. But this is not true, as far as I can tell. What constitutes 'quiet enough,' for example, would vary with the sensitivity of the speakers, the frequency range of the noise, the listening level, and the listeners' hearing acuity, "just for starters."
Second, tubey wants to know who set the accepted standards for the various criteria. As Presto has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any universally accepted standards for the characteristics he asks about. This does not necessarily mean that Mr. Aczel's criteria would be completely arbitrary, as he may base them on his long experience with DBTs. So again, the appropriate person to ask about about Peter Aczel's reasons for saying what he does is Mr. Aczel or maybe one of his associates.
Both you and tubey seem to want to dictate linguistic usage. Tubey seems to think his definition of accuracy in audio components should be accepted as opposed to Richard Greene's--and Richard's have the distinct virtue of being measureable. You want to dictate what constitutes an answer, even though in this situation, the most appropriate answer is to direct tubey to the person whose statements he questions, Mr. Aczel.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
So what is the point? Do you have nothing better to do? I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification. That clarified question had nothing to do with Peter Aczel and addressed the parameters of speaker load. And still you hang on to the semantics of the orignal question instead of addressing the clarified version. That smacks of a desire to argue about stupid things rather than offer meaningful answers. Hey if that's what gives you a woody whatever.
You say "I clarified Tubeguy's question, he agreed with my clarification." Which of the many questions did you clarify? And where?Moreover, if you think trying to get clear questions and intelligible discourse is silly, so be it.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: