In Reply to: Observation cannot be subjective or objective posted by Sordidman on June 28, 2010 at 07:47:05:
But accuracy IS defined. How faithful is the output signal to the source signal? The more faithful, the more accurate. It's that simple. Now you may prefer a different reflection of the recording. You may even find it is more natural, but that's where it gets subjective, and complicated. Whatever they are, seek your preferences and enjoy them. But I know my own very well: I have, for decades, preferred the less dramatic, the less colorful, the more faithful. What many call dry, boring, clinical, I find to be a clear window into the recording. Sometimes it looks upon something pretty ugly. At its best, It reveals something quite beautiful, something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible
That's what I seek.
P
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Phelonious Ponk 17:34:44 06/28/10 (42)
- No: accuracy has never been defined - Sordidman 08:39:29 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: No: accuracy has never been defined - Phelonious Ponk 10:27:20 06/29/10 (16)
- "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Sordidman 11:17:06 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Phelonious Ponk 11:37:19 06/29/10 (14)
- GAMUT CD players - Sordidman 12:27:07 06/29/10 (13)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Tony Lauck 15:01:15 06/29/10 (4)
- Can you define the "standard?" - Sordidman 15:20:30 06/29/10 (3)
- RE: Can you define the "standard?" - Tony Lauck 15:28:29 06/29/10 (2)
- The GamuT design (at least the CD-1 that I use) - E-Stat 17:33:05 06/29/10 (0)
- If you want to listen to 2 discs - Sordidman 15:46:18 06/29/10 (0)
- RE: GAMUT CD players - Phelonious Ponk 14:42:27 06/29/10 (7)
- Guess you didn't read my post - Sordidman 15:37:53 06/29/10 (6)
- Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 16:16:45 06/29/10 (5)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Sordidman 17:02:01 06/29/10 (4)
- RE: Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 17:44:39 06/29/10 (3)
- sadly: vagaries are all we have -t - Sordidman 18:06:01 06/29/10 (2)
- Well, they're all you have - NT - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:18 06/30/10 (1)
- No correspondance hearing is fallable, and a moving target -t - Sordidman 10:14:20 07/01/10 (0)
- "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 19:05:59 06/28/10 (23)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 20:14:04 06/28/10 (22)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 06:29:17 06/29/10 (21)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 08:02:03 06/29/10 (20)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 08:40:30 06/29/10 (19)
- RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 11:02:56 06/29/10 (18)
- Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Sordidman 11:21:07 06/29/10 (17)
- RE: Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Phelonious Ponk 12:11:42 06/29/10 (16)
- Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Sordidman 12:33:39 06/29/10 (15)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 14:57:40 06/29/10 (14)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 05:29:09 06/30/10 (13)
- Yes, you are right on with that......... -t - Sordidman 10:38:09 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:44:58 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 10:02:20 06/30/10 (2)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 11:59:12 06/30/10 (1)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 16:33:08 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Tony Lauck 06:20:44 06/30/10 (7)
- You said this much better than I did - Sordidman 10:36:59 06/30/10 (0)
- Agreed (nt) - kerr 10:03:13 06/30/10 (0)
- RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:39:45 06/30/10 (4)
- ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Sordidman 10:47:37 06/30/10 (3)
- RE: ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Phelonious Ponk 12:10:24 06/30/10 (2)
- You have made a number of interesting posts - Sordidman 08:03:33 07/02/10 (1)
- RE: You have made a number of interesting posts - Phelonious Ponk 17:19:04 07/02/10 (0)