|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
The equalizer comment did not help. Any system that depends on an equalizer to sound good (your own words), is not going to be set-up very well, or have a high amount of resolving power. I say this based on my years of expereince with many different systems, different acoustics, etc. Many other audiophiles and music lovers out there are also going to have the same feelings, based on THEIR experiences and journey's through the home audio playback minefield. If an EQ is NECESSARY, then something is not 100% optimized.Also, in so many cases, the addition of an EQ, with it's additional circuitry, phase shifts, etc. is NOT going to help in terms of total system resolving power, adding an EQ to the circuit path is NOT going to help clarity and low level details. Again, this is based on years and years of first hand experience. In the pro arena, EQ's are considered a necessity to achieve some semblance of desirable system response, and then a necessary evil at that.
How shamelessly hypocritical can you get, Jon?
The whole point of the DBT-Free Zone policy is to prevent intolerance of people's SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES by being challenged using OBJECTIVE CRITERIA!
Yet here you are challenging Jitter's SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES using OBJECTIVE CRITERIA! Christ, what next? Are you going to challenge him to take a double blind test in order to substantiate his SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE!?
WHAT A !@#$% HYPOCRITE YOU ARE, JON!
WHO CARES IF HE'S USING AN EQUALIZER!? What if he were using a zero feedback SET amplifier? Would you be harrassing him about its gross distortions? It's exceedingly high output impedance? Would you tell him something else must not be 100% optimized because he has to resort to using a zero feedback SET amplifier to achieve SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION!?!?!
What if he's using a Cello Audio Palette equalizer? Or one of the TacT units? Would he still be the subject of such ridicule?
This is an absolutely disgusting display of sheer spiteful, hypocritical intolerance. I don't believe you should be allowed to hold any position of enforcing the rules here.
RESIGN!
se
Follow Ups:
And not hang on every word that's written here and in other places,as though it was gospel.You need to find your OWN ultimate truth.Find what works for YOU.The hell with everybody else.And develop a little common sense.If it smells like snake oil,it probably is. And I'll make do very nicely with a pint of something locally brewed and fat ol' Partagas Robusto.
And not hang on every word that's written here and in other places,as though it was gospel.You need to find your OWN ultimate truth.Find what works for YOU.The hell with everybody else.And develop a little common sense.If it smells like snake oil,it probably is.Exactly. There's a tremendous amount of insecurity in this hobby. And coupled with the intolerance that's also manifest to much too great a degree, tends to keep people boxed in by the prevailing dogma. Which is a bit ironic given that at the same time the intolerant are attempting to enforce the prevailing dogma, they often make examples of those who who weren't content to accept the previaling dogma. Like Galileo.
And I'll make do very nicely with a pint of something locally brewed and fat ol' Partagas Robusto.
And toast the person that is making do just as nicely with a 40 ouncer of Olde English 800 and a Black & Mild. :)
se
Or Budweiser and a White Owl....
Or Budweiser and a White Owl....Good heavens no. We have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. :)
se
Just some thoughts directed at no one in particular:Sometimes I think people forget that there is another living, breathing person that reads/responds to these posts. Too often, we are responding to words on our computer screen, rather than the people that have written them.
Might I suggest that people write their posts in such a manner that they were in the same room with that person discussing the given subject at a social gathering?
I have recently been having to wade through similar types of posts on a photography forum. Same crap, completely different subject. You'd be amazed at the similarities: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=426523
This isn't about useful cable discussions any more- it's about personality conflicts, competition, and getting attention, IMHO.
These personal disputes should be handled via private e-mail like gentlemen so the substantive discussions may take place.
BTW, I say all this with my "asylum member" hat on, not as a member of the Bored.
This is the thanks he gets.
Steve,I owe an explanation. When you are evaluating the subtle effects that cables impart on the sound of the system introducing an equalizer of any quality is cheating the rules. There is an urge is to change the tonal character of the system just because you can. We could start another holly war on the merrits of EQ. (which i am a strong oponent of because of their inherent distortion of the group delay of the system) But remember that holly war will not help to win or lose the issue on cables. What jitter did is, he admitted that he did not care about what cables do because he just nulls them out with his trust EQ. Based on that he tries to convince the rest of us that we should not care either. Now if he is a lucky and can afford the chello he does less harm than some of the gazzilion band monsters from the 80s. But you can not complain about the texture of your chateau briand after you put it through the meatgrinder.
dee
;-D
You guys just love to win... so you have it i give up, this a total waste of my time.dee
;-D
"What jitter did is, he admitted that he did not care about what cables do because he just nulls them out with his trust EQ. "You've got to be kidding. The EQ is to balance out the responce in the room based on where I am forced to place my speakers. Cables won't fix that, acoustic treatment won't fix that. So once again, you are making gross, uninformed assumptions, just like Jon Risch did.
You also leave out the possibilities of having listened to other systems, no? You must think I live in a vacuum.
Even so, what my system needs are has nothing to do with what I have, or have not discovered about wires and cables. The two are mutually exclusive.
It's this kind of utter stupidity that is just so mind-boggling.
I owe an explanation.Ok.
When you are evaluating the subtle effects that cables impart on the sound of the system introducing an equalizer of any quality is cheating the rules.
Cheating the rules? What rules? I thought there was only one rule: The enjoyment of listening to music. Where can I find these other rules you say are being cheated on?
There is an urge is to change the tonal character of the system just because you can.
Can, and do. Why do you think people keep trying new components? New interconnects? New speaker cables? New tubes? What's the purpose of this other than to chnage the tonal character of the system?
We could start another holly war on the merrits of EQ.
Why should there be any sort of holy war? Are you trying to equate yourself with the likes of the Taliban and others who are wholly intolerant of other peoples' personal preferences?
(which i am a strong oponent of because of their inherent distortion of the group delay of the system)
Well thank God we live in a country celebrates individuality and the freedom to make individual choices for ourselves. And if we could just bring a bit more of that spirit here, I wouldn't be writing this in the first place.
But remember that holly war will not help to win or lose the issue on cables.
There is no "issue" to win except with ourselves. Whatever cable gets you where you want to be is the only one that counts. And more importantly, it only counts for YOU and no one else.
What jitter did is, he admitted that he did not care about what cables do because he just nulls them out with his trust EQ.
He admitted no such thing. He admitted that he hasn't experienced any difference in cables so he doesn't worry about them. How the hell can he null out something which he admits he can't hear?
The other day upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again to day
Gee I wish he'd go away.--Shel "Jitter" Silverstein
Based on that he tries to convince the rest of us that we should not care either.
Well your "that" wasn't there to begin with so he clearly wasn't basing it on "that."
And how exactly did he try and convince anyone that they should not care either? It's not anything I recall seeing. But I could have overlooked it. Would you care to substantiate that with a direct quote?
Now if he is a lucky and can afford the chello he does less harm than some of the gazzilion band monsters from the 80s.
He seems to be pretty content with what he's got now. I'd call that lucky.
I find it very ironic that Mtrycrafts was run out of here because of his annoying habit of trying to save people from themselves. Yet that's pretty much what you're doing here. Oh, but of course you have The Truth ® on your side so that makes it ok.
But you can not complain about the texture of your chateau briand after you put it through the meatgrinder.
And the Asylum would be a better place if people weren't harrassed or ridiculed for getting their personal satisfaction by putting their Chateau Brion through a meat grinder.
se
Steve - you are a great BS detector for all the space cadets out there who try to pass off some bogus "technology". You ask basic questions they find awkward to answer. While I have respect for Mr. Curl's designs dating back to the legendary JC-2 preamp, I too wonder why he chooses at times to debate credentials rather than issues.Jon - you regularly deliver great real world value to us in the form of DIY projects and excellent advice. My system is much the better because of you.
Thanks to you both. Now, may I suggest a nice bottle of Shiraz Cabernet I happen to be sampling now?
rw
I will sit on the sidelines and sip wine with you, you seem to be the only island of common sense. Although it is Malbec tonight.dee
;-D
Between insights from Jon, Audioengr and Chris VenHaus, this is one of, if not the best forum!
Steve is not suggesting that Jon be banned from the Asylum. If Jon is no longer a moderator, he could still post. Duh.Frosty
Jon Rische has been on of the singular most helpful people in audio since the mid 90's.
He has responded with excellent advice and direction for making crossovers and cables that work right.
My freinds and dealers that have heard my Rische-designs really like them and some are making thier own.
As far as I am concerned, Jon makes huge contributions here, not liabilities.
Just because Jon contributes does not make him right. So why bring this up? Der.Frosty
Jon always has constructive comments as in this case. This forum is as much about the science as the experience of users. It is about sharing our experiences and learning something from them. I like to keep an open mind and try to learn something as well as share my experiences.This is not a court of law or a engineering review board, of which you are the judge or chairman. If you would find the inclination to actually help folks instead of picking at minutiae, challenging observations as if they were controlled experiments and generally criticizing everyone because you evidently know more than all of us combined and can't possible learn anything from any of us, then you would undoubtedly make more friends and get back some of what you put in. Kind, unselfish deeds are repayed many times over.
there is a good chance you will be the next feature on CSI.
You're off base here, Mr. Steve Eddy. Jon is a tremendous resource to us all here. He is extremely knowledgeable and helpful.We all, at times, do things that others do not agree with. We all make mistakes or do things that others perceive as mistakes. (Please note here that I am not making a direct comment on my opinions of Jon's response(s)). That does not however, mean we should immediately lynch them or call for a resignation.
Frankly you should be feeling rather ridiculous right now for posting such an absurd attack on Jon. If you were to poll the inmates, I think you would find that he is well respected.
Relax, and remember what this hobby is about--the sound. Agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Yeah, I'll agree that Jon contributes a lot to the Asylum, but that means he can never be wrong? If he is no longer a moderator, he can still post, so what are you trying to say? Steve is not saying to ban Jon or anything like that."We all, at times, do things that others do not agree with. We all make mistakes or do things that others perceive as mistakes. (Please note here that I am not making a direct comment on my opinions of Jon's response(s)). That does not however, mean we should immediately lynch them or call for a resignation."
Immediately? Hmmm, if I'm not mistaken, Steve has posted numerous posts about things like this. I think Steve has gotten fed up with the lack of response to his previous posts and felt the need to post this in order to get his point across.
"Frankly you should be feeling rather ridiculous right now for posting such an absurd attack on Jon. If you were to poll the inmates, I think you would find that he is well respected."
Oh, so what the majority says means everything? Just because he is respected means he cannot make a wrong? I think we all need to sit back and see our biases, and then try to look around those and see the real situation.
Frosty
U bloody bloke!
If you're going to examine the situation, look at the BIG picture.Jon posts as a moderator. With that in mind, i think that he has typically been VERY fair overall. There have been more than a few posts that went WAY adrift, but Jon let them stay. That in itself demonstrates that he is not "heavy handed" or simply trying to present / preserve a personal agenda.
Jon also posts as an individual. He posts his thoughts on various subjects, sometimes when asked to, sometimes not. In this respect, he is just like you or I. As such, he has probably contributed more usable information supported by education and experience than ANY other "regular" on AA. I do not say this with disrespect for ANY of the others that try so hard to help, but out of the GREAT amount of respect that i have for Jon and the effort that he puts forth.
Jon also posts as what some consider to be an "Audio God" i.e. the reference to the "Second Coming". Given his level of education as an EE, his experience and background in both professional and consumer audio products AND as a forum moderator, some people make him or his opinions / statements out to be "The Word of God" i.e. place him on a pedestal that NO man can live up to. As such, he becomes an open target when he does "slip" or make a mistake.
Given the amount of posts and information that Jon has presented / continues to present here, i think that he has done a pretty "moderate" job of controlling himself and presented an upright position on the whole. Anybody that looks at his responses other than his personal point of view ( based on his education and experiences ) has taken it upon themselves to place him on the aforementioned pedestal. If you ( or anyone else for that matter ) think that they could present THOUSANDS of posts and remain completely unbiased, fair, emotionally un-attached, etc... then go for it. I see NO human being that could measure up to those expectations nor remain on that pedestal for very long.
As to Jitter's comments, i can understand where he is coming from. Then again, i have been in his shoes MANY times and opened myself up for those rebuttals. By making public comments, we open ourselves up for public commentaries and questions on the statements that we make. These could come in the shape of compliments, criticism, support, disdain and those that just want to heckle, etc... I do realize that negative comments or responses coming from someone as reputable as Jon ( the individual, NOT the moderator ) seems to hurt more than if it came from Joe Blow. None the less, it should be taken with a grain of salt like any other person trying to present / prove their point of view. This is ESPECIALLY true given the VERY subjective and personal nature of audio.
Just as you presented your thoughts and feelings on Jon's response with the full amount of emotion that it charged you with, in turn, Jon replied to Jitter's comments with his very personal take on the situation. So be it. Obviously, it is a controversial subject that has generated mass repurcussions. With that in mind, ANYTHING posted on the net should be considered nothing more than ones' personal opinion, regardless of their position(s) in life or on a specific "forum". If we all did this, we might be able to better communicate different points of view rather than try to prove the "I'm right, you're wrong" that we all too often run into.
As to who i am to say all of this, i'm "nobody". As we all know, "nobody's perfect". Since i am "nobody", that makes me perfect. Given that fact, i think that we should all settle down and play nice : ) Sean
>
Steve,You got pretty excited on this one, you really should calm down.
You claim I am questioning JbC's subjective impressions with objective criteria.
It is amazing to me how this idea got into your head. I was speaking of MY subjective impressions, and those of other audiophiles and music lovers, vs. his subjective impressions. I was speaking of the impression that his posted comments gave to others regarding his system.
I did so by clearly stating that this was based on my years of experience. I did not feel it necessary to also state that these were my subjective impressions, opinions or experiences, and I do not feel that ANYONE should have to do so on an audio chat board. Such a place is, by definition, a place where people are airing their opinions and experiences. How this magically turned into objective criteria in your mind is the real mystery.Additionally, the equalizer itself is not the real issue, it is the fact that he said his system sounded BAD when he bypassed the EQ. This would raise a red flag to anyone who has been fiddling with high performance audio for many years. You can not fix poor room acoustics or a poor speaker with an EQ, and if his system sounds BAD without benefit of the EQ, then he has either really poor room acoustics OR the speaker itself is not doing so great. Or the system would not sound bad without EQ, it would just sound mediocre or less than great, etc. Just as a reminder, these opinions are all based on my subjective impressions from working with EQ's, and playback systems, over the years.
The remainder of your post is filled with loaded and prejudicial words and phrases, few of which are relevant or appropriate given the actual content of my post to JbC and other such posts.
I make a strong effort to do a fair job of moderating, and there are times when I reign in my personal feelings or POV because of that. I refrain from posting, or perhaps, more carefully word my reply. I also try very hard to avoid censorship in the form of deletions, etc.
However, I am charged with the responsibility of trying to keep order on a moderated yet public forum, not an easy task by any means. Let he who is perfect and free from any flames or attacks come and cast the first stone.As to why JbC was issued a public warning in the first place, I received several e-mails from concerned inmates, as well as notification from the Bored. He does NOT have a private e-mail that is readily available, he has chosen NOT to receive any mail from inmates. I would normally have contacted him privately by e-mail for a warning, but I did not have that option in this case.
That particular thread was closed based on a discussion with Bored members, after due consideration, and not on a whim, and certainly not based on my personal feelings about any of this.
I suggest that your posted concerns are misplaced, and not really on target, since I was NOT doing anything like what you state that I was. Additionally, I would suggest that you reconsider your choice of language and the use of inappropriate innuendo in posting on AA.
Jon Risch
You claim I am questioning JbC's subjective impressions with objective criteria.It is amazing to me how this idea got into your head.
Shouldn't be amazing at all to anyone that can read and comprehend simple English.
You started out with:
Any system...
Do mean to say that you do not understand the meaning of the word "any"? Any would be my system. Or your system. Or anyone else's system. Or everyone's system. Without exclusion.
So as soon as you used the word "any" you inherently claim that what follows is universal and applies to everyone without exclusion. Which makes it an objective claim.
I was speaking of MY subjective impressions, and those of other audiophiles and music lovers, vs. his subjective impressions.
You were asserting those subjective impressions as OBJECTIVE FACT right at the moment you chose to use the word "any" and thereby making a claim of universality which is ipso facto NOT subjective.
You're either being intellectually dishonest and trying to have it both ways or you're having trouble with the meanings of simple, everyday English words.
I was speaking of the impression that his posted comments gave to others regarding his system.
You mean the knee-jerk prejudice his comments drew from others.
If you look back, you'll see that his mentioning an equalizer was purely ancillary to what he was actually saying. But as is all too common here, some people seem wholly incapable of addressing what's actually said and insead choose to go off on some knee-jerk tangent in some pathetic attempt to impugn.
Here's Jitter's original comment (which was just a minor portion of a larger post):
I can also by-pass the equalizer in my stereo system and at first it sounds awful. In fifteen minutes, I cannot tell you what exactly sounded so awful, I just remember that it was different.
Penguin WHOLLY IGNORED EVERYTHING else in that post and instead zeroed in on the ancillary mention of an equalizer in his system. Here's the entirety of Pengin's reply:
You said it yourself. If you need an equalizer your problems are bigger than cables.
Oh, he also changed the topic to "I just located your problem Jitter !!!!"
It's pretty obvious from this and subsequent posts in that thread that Penguin and others simply don't like Jitter for some unknown personal reasons and were just looking for some chink in his armor with which to launch a prejudicial attack in an attempt to discredit him because he didn't share their particular dogma.
There was no simple sharing of divergent opinions, but rather an intolerant judgement being passed on him. There was nothing even remotely resembling something along the lines of "Yeah? You're using an equalizer? I haven't found one that I've been satisfied with." This is what the discussion SHOULD have resembled in any forum which claims to be a place where people can share their personal experiences without fear of being brow-beat by those who don't share those same personal experiences.
I did so by clearly stating that this was based on my years of experience.
Doesn't matter what you based it on. It's still an objective claim.
If I make the objective claim:
All poodles are dogs.
And I follow up with:
And I base that on my years of experience wherein all poodles have been dogs.
That does NOT change the fact that my claim is still an objective claim. It's simply offering evidence in support of that claim. And while that evidence may be of a subjective nature, the fact remains that it's being ASSERTED as an objective claim.
I did not feel it necessary to also state that these were my subjective impressions, opinions or experiences, and I do not feel that ANYONE should have to do so on an audio chat board. Such a place is, by definition, a place where people are airing their opinions and experiences.
I agree. But when one makes an unequivocal assertion of objective fact, as you did when you opted for the nonexclusive word "any", then they've deliberately chosen to leave that assumptive realm of subjectivity and all bets are off.
How this magically turned into objective criteria in your mind is the real mystery.
The real mystery is why you apparently haven't a grasp of the meaning of the word "any." Of course I don't really think you're that daft. Personally I think you're just trying to worm out of a situation you got yourself into by letting prejudice, spite and perhaps a bit of paranoia get the better of you.
I mean, you do spend a good amount of time over on Audio Review where Mtrycrafts and others are constantly going at you. Is it not at all possible that you could be taking some of that frustration out undeservedly on people here? When people come home from a bad day at work, it's not uncommon for them to take some of it out on the family.
Additionally, the equalizer itself is not the real issue, it is the fact that he said his system sounded BAD when he bypassed the EQ. This would raise a red flag to anyone who has been fiddling with high performance audio for many years.
Actually he said "awful." But the key here is "he said." How do have any gague as to just what constitutes "awful" to him? For all you know, what sounds "awful" to him might sound great to you.
As for red flags, people who have been fidding around with high performance audio for many years fairly routinely use words such as "awful" to describe things they try in their systems that others who have been fiddling around with high performance audio for many years say sound fantastic.
In fact people routinely use interconnects, speaker cables and tubes as effective "tone controls" as this gives them a means to tune their systems to THEIR PERSONAL LIKING seeing as most gear doesn't come equipped with tone controls, equalizers, etc. and if these people ever did use such things, the lynch mob here would soon have them strung up and hanging from a tree.
"This cable sounds too bright." "This cable sounds too dark." "This cable is juuuuust right." What the hell's the difference if someone achieves the same result and satisfaction with a LITERAL tone control?
Would you tell the people using interconnects, speaker cables and tubes as tone controls that if their systems sound bad with certain interconnects, speaker cables or tubes then their systems are not going to be set up very well or have a high amount of resolving power as you insisted with someone using a literal tone control? Would you be crawling up their colons like you have Jitter's?
You can not fix poor room acoustics or a poor speaker with an EQ...
Certainly an EQ can't fix EVERYTHING, but they can fix some things, even some rather obnoxious things, and they can get you closer to what ultimately pleases you. And isn't that what we're all really after?
and if his system sounds BAD without benefit of the EQ, then he has either really poor room acoustics OR the speaker itself is not doing so great. Or the system would not sound bad without EQ, it would just sound mediocre or less than great, etc. Just as a reminder, these opinions are all based on my subjective impressions from working with EQ's, and playback systems, over the years.
And what of those whose systems sound bad without the benefit of certain specific interconnects, speaker cables and/or tubes?
I make a strong effort to do a fair job of moderating, and there are times when I reign in my personal feelings or POV because of that. I refrain from posting, or perhaps, more carefully word my reply. I also try very hard to avoid censorship in the form of deletions, etc.
However, I am charged with the responsibility of trying to keep order on a moderated yet public forum, not an easy task by any means. Let he who is perfect and free from any flames or attacks come and cast the first stone.Yes. And when one is charged with the responsibility of trying to keep order on a moderated yet public forum, it's expected that they not be among those throwing gasoline onto the fire.
I suggest that your posted concerns are misplaced, and not really on target, since I was NOT doing anything like what you state that I was. Additionally, I would suggest that you reconsider your choice of language and the use of inappropriate innuendo in posting on AA.
And I suggest otherwise. *shrug*
se
I think I had 2 in the last year. What were we talking about? Something about casting a stone... I don't know.Personally, I think JR has done a decent job of running the show.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I'm sick of the stone throwing, regardless of whose throwing. This type of behavior is what closed Jazz Talk at www.jazzonline.com What use to be the best most informative Jazz related Bulletin board on the web. Now I'm stuck at Bluenote.com! If you want to destroy something, fire away! Ruin it for everyone. Or, why not just take it outside? Oh, but that isn't any fun. Nobody else can see how smart you are, or how you can decifer each and every word. Hmmm, maybe that's it. Maybe it's ego? (I'm not on anyones' side. I think that like most people here, when we see flame throwing, we leave. I don't want to read that shit! I know others don't either.) I do feel sorry for MR Risch, as I hear that he sells some audio gear and he's probably afraid that if he doesn't respond, he'll lose revenue.Exchange e-mail addresses and take it outside. Don't ruin this site!
"Additionally, the equalizer itself is not the real issue, it is the fact that he said his system sounded BAD when he bypassed the EQ. This would raise a red flag to anyone who has been fiddling with high performance audio for many years. "And you never stopped once to think that might have been a bit of an exaggeration in order to make a point. No one else here has done that I suppose?
I guess I'll tighten the reigns on my personal comments further since they are so easily miscontrued, as was the comment regarding auditory memory in the first place.
I don't believe my auditory memory isn't that bad. I've played with dozens of different cables and heard many differences between them. There is some current scientific research that supports the idea that your hearing can become more acute with little practice. I've had lots of practice at little cost and feel pretty confident with my observations. I don't want to start another war here. I just wanted to share my experience.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
I've read some of the research. Not sure it is all that conclusive. I'm still trying to figure out what the last paper I read was really trying to say.Still I don't think it would be a good idea to listen to something, drive across town and think that I could acurately remember the subtle details of what I heard 20 minutes ago after fightin my way through all the bad drivers and elevating my BP 20 points..........
...an exageraton, how do you not know that small excursions in FR don't sound awful to me?It's just easier to assume something might be horribly amiss, isn't it.
I'm using Jon Risch interconnects (sound great), Jon Risch cc89259 speaker cables (extremely nice, thank you Jon), biwired (thanks again, Jon), and a couple of Jon Risch line filters....J.R. bass traps will be needed someday too.
Jon Risch's contribution to my audio system and my "audio happiness" has been HUGE and all positive.
End of discussion
...you obviously are too in love with Jon to possibly see any wrong he might do. So I think you're input is useless in this discussion. I have a lot of Jon's designs in my system, too, but that doesn't persued me at all. Try looking at what actually happened instead of letting your blind love of Jon control your responses.Thanks in advance for the cooperation,
Frosty
nt
Steve,I believe there is blame enough to go around. Opinions are like a__---les and they all stink. Just because you sense that Jon's opinions are dispersed as fact is something independent 0f the gist of his "opinion". Just like everything in life you learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are in fact no absolutes except death (you can get out on the taxes by dying).
I certainly can see your point of Jon flashing credentials, whereas, you fall to obscemities. I don't have the academic endorsements of Jon, but I have been involved with this field for years. When I express an opinion (often times as fact), it is usually based on my experience and the data I have accumalated from conducting scientific test. These test satisfy me, and if it benefits someone elese by my sharing, so be it!
I have made post regarding my findings and have in fact recieved request for more specific details. Ocassionally, an inmate will attack me for being verbose, or question my post in a denegrating manner. I choose to ignore these inmates in most cases. There are audiophiles and audio fools. I find you and Jon to be audiophiles, even if in the confines of an asylum. I learn from yor exchanges even if I don't particularly like the tenor of those exchanges.
I don't want to take on the task as moderator, and if that is what you are volunteering for, go for it! Jon, seems to me to be more than judicious and honorable when he restates the rules of the asylum as the moderator. As a poster of messages, most times, Jon's offer useful advice. To me, the tone of your messages to Jon and some others (not all) tend to be rather acidic.
I don't know what the rub is between the two of you is, but I for one, would much rather read your opinions, rather they be couched as fact or not; and I would hope that the personal assaults would cease on the Asylum. I would ask that whatever the rub be taken offline and if no more than a armistice, as it relates to the Asylum, would be appreciated. Far too much bandwidth is used defending and posturing your egos.
"Those that live in glass house should not throw stones." We all live in glass house in this hobby. It surely doesn't take a lot to shatter another' house/ego. Kindly, moderate your exchanges in the future.
Not having all the answers......
Dave Toatley
Period. And get this drivel over with.joe
nt
Of course recording engineers never use things such as equalizers, even though there is one on each channel strip of their mixing board.Then there are other signal modifiers such as compressors, multi-band compressors, de-essers, vocal enhancers, limiters, noise gates, and so on....
The signal has been manipulated 100 different ways before it ever gets to media production. Much less than the fact the "sound" you get is based on what the production staff was looking for in the first place. Sheesh.
Steve, me and Jitter, what do you say??All seriousness though, comments against the generic word "equaliser" should be used more wisely by various [my credentials?? somewhere between high priest of audio and total idiot should cover it]. I have never encountered a moving coil system that did not have equaliszation buit-in. As to the guy who drops in resonance... well my musical experience from pick on string through to electricity in my brain is nothing more than a mass of series connected, parallel resonant systems so let's not dump on those shall we?
taking you all on, with one ear tied behind my back..
Graham
Agreed Graham. We wouldn't have anything if it wasn't for resonant systems. If some of these people would take off their restrictive "audio glasses" they would see that the sun has a resonant cycle every 11 years - the sunspot cycle. The earth has several, one being 365.25 days. One being approximately 24 hours.Our atomic clocks are driven by the resonant frequency of the metallic element cesium 133.
Our vocal cords are resonant circuits.
Our ears are full of resonant circuits that enable us to detect sound.
The rods and cones in our eyes are resonant circuits.Zobal networks are resonant circuits.
A speaker is a resonant circuit.
An FM tuner has several.Nothing would exist without resonance.
No sound, no light, no life, no matter.Sheesh.
Why do people get so worked up about something that's SUPPOSED to be enjoyable? I've never seen another area of interest,or hobby,that inflates the value of opinion,and the resulting knee-jerk reactions,that audio does.Or is there a higher proportion of the audiophile community that is hypertensive?
In the name of love.....be-fore you break my heart.
Why do people get so worked up about something that's SUPPOSED to be enjoyable?Because some people simply aren't content in accepting their own enjoyment for what it is and have some bizarre desire to establish the means by which they get their enjoyment as some universal standard which they then use to pass judgement upon others.
se
Sounds like it's time to turn the computer off and get away from the whole thing.I've seen another hobby/interest where folks would start arguing,get red in the face,and generally lose control.I learned right then and there about the ON/OFF switch. Hey guys,just go to the fridge,crack open a cold one,turn on some music,and put your feet up.Not to point any fingers or make accusations,but if someone is having a problem with how another party expresses himself,virtual belly butting isn't gonna fix it.There's gotta be a better way.
the old Commodere vs. Apple days, he, he.
Oh man, are you dating yourself....then along came a CoCo....Funny, when I think back, I never remember having an operating system crash with those older machines, do you????
:)
Nope, no dead OS's! and it was all in ROM. Workbench (a bit later) would give you GUI with 80k, and multitask with 256k. BTW, nice handle.KP
No matter what you don't like about the way Jon does his moderating, I feel his POSITIVE contributions more than outweigh any deviations from absolutely neutral. Thanks Jon.Believe it or not, experience counts. I want a Doctor, a Dentist, a Electrician, a auto mechanic, etc. with experience (working for me). Their experience prepares them to perform the next task. In fact I pay extra for experienced help. I want someone who knows what they are doing, not just someone who knows how to talk.
Paul in Sterling
-
Firstly, Jon qualified his comments with " I say this based on my years of expereince" and "based on years and years of first hand experience"- hardly
an "objective" viewpoint.All Jon did was comment on Jitter's SUBJECTIVE preferences (for an eq) based on his own SUBJECTIVE experience- well within the spirit and rules
of any forum.Secondly, the reason for the DBT- Free Zone is quite clear -"the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death
spiraling flame wars" ( kind of like this thread )NOT
"to prevent intolerance of people's SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES by being challenged using OBJECTIVE CRITERIA" as you stated.
I know Jon is more than capable of looking after himself, but I think you are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, Jon qualified his comments with " I say this based on my years of expereince" and "based on years and years of first hand experience"- hardly
an "objective" viewpoint.What he was doing in the first paragraph was displaying complete intolerance by claiming that Jitter's system was crap simply because he uses an equalizer by way of asserting his subjective preferences as universal, objective fact. He qualified it as a claim of universal, objective fact by starting out with the words "ANY SYSTEM..." That means your system, my system, anyone else's system. Subjective viewpoints don't start out with "ANY SYSTEM..." but rather "MY SYSTEM..." His "years of experience" was simply further establishing his claim of objective fact.
But if you still want to deny that he was making an objective claim of fact, just move on to the second paragraph where he talks of "additional circuitry" and "phase shifts."
And riddle me this one, Batman, why would anyone with a TRULY subjective viewpoint make ANY judgement of ANYONE'S system but their own?
All Jon did was comment on Jitter's SUBJECTIVE preferences (for an eq) based on his own SUBJECTIVE experience- well within the spirit and rules
of any forum.Comment my ass. Jitter was prejudicially JUDGED simply because he had an equalizer in his system. Tell me, if I went around telling everyone with a SET amp that their amps were crap because I say so and because those high levels of distortion and high output impedance say so, how long do you think it would take before the "spirit and rules" ran my ass out of here on a rail?
Secondly, the reason for the DBT- Free Zone is quite clear -"the topics of DBT and ABX tend to force polarization and quickly degrade into death
spiraling flame wars" ( kind of like this thread )NOT
"to prevent intolerance of people's SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCES by being challenged using OBJECTIVE CRITERIA" as you stated.
The REAL reason for the DBT-Free Zone policy can pretty much be summed up in one word: Mtrycrafts. Perhaps Mtrycrafts was before your time here. But this was the usual routine:
Poster: Hey, I just got some new interconnects today and they sound much better than my old ones.
Mtrycrafts: Yeah? Please, tell us just how you controlled for sighted listening biases in order to reach that conclusion.
[INSERT DEATH SPIRAL FLAME WAR HERE]
So yes, it was very much peoples' subjective preferences being challenged using objective criteria.
se
.....well, maybe more like the Penguin.But I do wear my underwear on the outside of my pants- lucky guess on your part.
Steve,I am new to the AA (less than 3 month old), but I
have been as an audiophile for 35+ years. In 80's, I
actively worked for some high-end magazines and had
a chance to interview Mark Levinson himself (stayed with him
at his NY studio for almost 2 nights and 3 days). He
told me (I still have the interview tapes) his ONLY
design goal is to produce "music instrument" which
reproduces live/real music as close as possible. So,
using the EQ in his pre amp is not a surprise. It seems
to me that Jon's straight forward style is the thing
irritates you. But, PLEASE relax and re-read his posting
and to see if you feel differently?-- SJ
Steve, unfortunately you are just a badmouthing punk, who has 1/2 a technical education, and who can't learn from the rest of us.
We outgun you in education, experience, and professional outlook.
For the record, Jon Risch, the moderator of this forum, is a design engineer, who has actually contributed to the state-of-the-art in audio engineering. We have never found out what Steve Eddy has done, even when we have asked.
You do realize who John Curl is, and what he has accomplished in the world of audio?Admittedly, there is no love between JC and Steve Eddy, but I do believe John Curl qualifies -FAR- more than most as a subject matter [audio electronics] expert.
John C really didn't contradict himself at all. He is pressing a point. All the years of John Curls brilliant work, and he is comparing that to Steve E's contributions to the world of audio.
It's a bit of [deeply biting] sarcasm.
I can see you are obviously unbiases in your opinion here."You do realize who John Curl is, and what he has accomplished in the world of audio?"
No I do not, and quite frankly, I don't care, and nor do I know what Steve has accomplished in the world of audio either, and I don't care either. What's your point? Like Steve said, you cannot rely on reputation or credentials. I'm not looking at either of their credentials, I'm looking at what they said. I think Steve is a bit confrontational, but how else would he be able to prove his point? He's tried much nicer posts that got nowhere.
"Admittedly, there is no love between JC and Steve Eddy, but I do believe John Curl qualifies -FAR- more than most as a subject matter [audio electronics] expert."
Ok, again, what's your point? Are you basing everything on who is most qualified to give advice?
"John C really didn't contradict himself at all."
Yeah, what world are you living in? How can he make a statement based on absolutely NO knowledge that he has of the situation (he said said so)?
I see you are plainly biased and are consequently looking for only the good in John's statements, which also seems to be what is happening with 98% of the inmates who posted (in regard to Jon)- their love of Jon may blind them (in a way) so they may not see the bad in what's going on. I don't doubt the knowledge of John, Jon, or Steve; I think they are all very knowledgeable people who know their stuff. But just because they get into a disagreement doesn't mean one or the other is lacking knowledge, experience, etc, etc, but is mearly a disagreement. People are attacking credentials because they seem to be biased, and don't (or can't) address the real problem which Steve brings up. If Jon does something contradictory, does that mean Jon or Steve lose any knowledge? I don't think so.
Frosty
c
So John,Do you then support the notion that Jon, as a moderator, should call Steve a Hedonistic Subjectivist? Clearly an attempt to belittle his position, no?
Do you think it fair game to be accused of violating the DBT rules, when I never mentioned DBT? No, it was just asuumed, from which I spent too much energy warding off personal attacks.
Do you think it is fair for the founder of the board to string a bunch of unrelated posts together only to belittle me and tell me to "give it a rest". Really?
I stated my POV and I'm consistent in it, I'm entitled to it without belittlement, just as you are, no? Yet, I was accused of everything from being intellectually dishonest to having a crappy system.(And now that I'm a troll, Oh my, how amusing! Funny, just yesterday I helped someone find the Ixos website, odd behavior for a troll, no?) Yet, where was the moderator to tell these people not to hurl personal insults?
Something here is certainly not right, I'm truely sorry if you cannot see it.
Good Day sir.
Do you then support the notion that Jon, as a moderator, should call Steve a Hedonistic Subjectivist? Clearly an attempt to belittle his position, no?WHOA! Hold on there. I referred to myself previously as a hedonist subjectivist. Which I absolutely am. There's no way Jon can be belittling me by calling me something which I unashamedly call myself.
Whatever problems I have with Jon, this ain't one of 'em.
Here's what I said that Jon was referring to:
My Hard-Line Subjectivist side simply accepts my (or anyone else's for that matter) subjective perceptions for what they are and I don't give one rat's ass what ultimately accounts for those subjective perceptions. If my subjective perceptions are being influenced simply because something LOOKS cool, so be it. My Hard-Line Subjectivist side is a total hedonist without a single bone of logic or utility.
So to answer the question, "Clearly an attempt to belittle his position, no?"
No. :)
se
Yeah, I guess I either missed it in a recent post or haven't been around long enough to have seen it, so Jon gets one back.Fair enough.
When I posted to Steve with a title with Hedonistic Subjectivist side, it was based on Steve's own post, see:
http://www.AudioAsylum.com/audio/cables/messages/38583.html
where he says: " My Hard-Line Subjectivist side is a total hedonist without a single bone of logic or utility."I was trying to inject a little humor into the fray, as a sort of defusing tactic. Oh well.
I will not comment at this time on your other posted claims.
Jon Risch
OK, I'll grant you that one. I haven't been arond long enough to have seen that posting. To the newer people and environment of that whole thread, it would have seemed as a personal attack if they didn't understand the history. Guess Steve got it.
wow, haven't seen the punk card dropped on someone since WWF a few weeks back. --game, set, match.really, steve, was this necessary???
jrisch has been nothing but helpful and informed to those on this board, often times answering the same question posted over again by new arrivals.
rhyno
Steve? No, it was Jon Curl who made that comment.
john curl: stepping up--throwing down steve's punk card was hardcore john--very strong! i am humbled by the manliness!steve eddy: making waves--as in: "steve, why did you start all this? what's the point?"
Well, I guess he sees a gross imbalance in the way certain issues are handled. Being the recipent of them when I did not mention what I was told I did, among other things that subsequently happened, I tend to concur at the moment.Perhaps you missed the thread a way down the list.
Have a nice day.
Steve's style of posting where he quotes your lines and then rips them apart one by one with his brand of questionable pomposity is rude, obnoxious, offensive, ineffective and an assault on all of us.Many times he seems to post just to make an argument and doesn't clearly state his own stance. I suggest he give his opinions in a line or two and be civil.
Either way, whenever I see "Steve Eddy" on a post, I don't read it anymore, because I don't take him seriously.
John,I asked last year that very question. Do you know what I got in return from him? A big F.U. via e-mail, plus his usual nasty comments on the audio forums over a disagreement.
Thank you for telling it like it is.
Alan
I asked last year that very question. Do you know what I got in return from him? A big F.U. via e-mail, plus his usual nasty comments on the audio forums over a disagreement.As I've said before, I'll be happy to answer any such questions just as soon as someone presents a cogent argument as to why it matters. One's words do not stand or fall based on the "credentials" of the person saying them but on the validity of the words themselves. Not even Einstein got that kind of a break.
And if you haven't noticed, John pretty much invariably engages in debate with me NOT by challenging what I actually say, but rather by whipping out his dick, er, credentials and challenging me to whip out mine. You'd think with the impressive set of credentials he claims to have he'd have no trouble at all challenging what I actually say.
So instead of worrying about what my credentials are, perhaps you should be wondering what the hell good John's credentials are other than as a charlatan's tool to impress the gullible, brow beat those who don't share his beliefts and hide behind the rest of the time.
se
se,I'm not a fan of Jon's.
Alan
I'm not a fan of Jon's.I wasn't talking about Jon in my post above. I was talking about John. As in Curl.
se
Well I like Mr. Curl :)Alan
Well I like Mr. Curl :)We noticed. :)
se
HowdyI'm pretty sure I'll regret adding to the fracas, but here goes:
Although the Circle Squarers always had logic on their side (at least in their view) more experienced mathematicians knew that it was impossible to square a circle. The Circle Squarers never seemed to understand why they were being dismissed out of hand, but they never listened to (or were incapable of understanding) why their quest was impossible.
At this time both Mr. Eddy and Jitter remind me strongly of the Circle Squarers...
-Ted
Dear Mr. Eddy,
As an observing Audiophile of not much standing-give or take the past 50 years or so--but sound of mind, allow me to cast my vote to your proposition.Mr. Jon Risch one definite vote to stay.
Mr. S Eddy nil.
Des
Mr. Jon Risch one definite vote to stay.Lest there be any confusion, my "proposition" was not for Jon to leave the Asylum. Only that he resign his position as moderator. The job of moderator is to moderate discussions by enforcing the rules which govern those discussions. When a moderator flagrantly violates those rules they are charged to enforce in an attempt to impugn and discredit someone else, thereby making himself the provoker, I think it's time for that responsibility to be given over to someone else.
If you feel that these are admirable traits in a moderator, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.
se
Mr. Eddy,
For a supposedly clued up dude--to stick your head up over the parapet with such a confrontationalist post and expect to dodge all the bullets?Fat chance mon aimee'
Moi
I'm not a new poster to this forum but I have emailed Jon in the past. I think that most people here want Jon to be more than just a moderator. How else could you explain the frequent Q for Jon posts. The fact is that Jon is considered a source/cable authority, the job of moderator is just something extra for Jon to do. Perhaps there could be more than one moderator since a moderator's job is often very hard when there is lots of traffic on the site.But I think you have to separate Jon the moderator from Jon the poster. Even if Jon is the a hypocrite or an unknowledgeable poster etc. etc. (which IMO he's not) it does not make him a bad moderator. As long as he doesn't abuse his power (which many do) or deletes posts that everyone think should not be deleted then there's no reason for him to resign. So far Eddy, you seem to be the only one wanting Jon to resign.
"But I think you have to separate Jon the moderator from Jon the poster. Even if Jon is the a hypocrite or an unknowledgeable poster etc. etc. (which IMO he's not) it does not make him a bad moderator. As long as he doesn't abuse his power (which many do) or deletes posts that everyone think should not be deleted then there's no reason for him to resign. So far Eddy, you seem to be the only one wanting Jon to resign."As moderator, you don't expect him to set a proper tone of behaviour then? How do you expect him to enforce the rules if he can't engage in the behavior that is expected from everyone else? The two are not as mutually exclusive as you would like to think. I would think that the reason for chosing someone as moderator in the first place is that they show an even handedness in their approach to all situations, including from those who strongly disagree with them, or with whom they strongly disagree. If they cannot, why should he be elevated to the position of moderator?
I'm not saying Jon should resign, but I believe he definately did not handle this well by becoming one of the provokers, whether or not he felt justified to. His position as moderator should have superceeded his personal position.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: