In Reply to: RE: Observation cannot be subjective or objective posted by Phelonious Ponk on June 28, 2010 at 17:34:44:
care to take a shot?
""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.""
""I have""
I would think that a good definition would want to take any one individual's subjective preferences out of the mix.
Wouldn't we have to define accuracy to be something akin to THD distortion rate, or some kind of distortion rate across a detectable bandwidth? And if so, how would we define "detectable" and "distortion."
And, this is not to mention the stuff, (and it's probably considerable), that I'm missing.
""something I want as unclouded by the subjectivist's interpretation as possible""
As you wrote above, - that's just about as "subjective" as one can get: and a great support of my argument.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)