 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.87.72.203
In Reply to: RE: My Reading Comprehension Shortcomings posted by suretyguy on March 23, 2008 at 15:00:15
Hi.
You wrote:
"Speaking of contradictions, what I find most fascinating about audio show coverage generally is that, to a man, the writers (not just for TAS, but all of them) disclaim the validity of evaluating equipment under such conditions-and then promptly proceed to do just that, producing mini-reviews and choosing "best sound" winners!
"Oh, well, who ever said audio writing has to make sense?"
The distinction is this: I believe that a positive result under hi-fi show conditions is at least more likely than not validly positive under many other conditions, whereas a negative result is not dispositive.
In other words, I walk into a room at a hi-fi show. The demonstrator is playing a recording I am familiar with. If it sounds "good"--if it sounds like the listener will have an emotionally involving experience with the music--I jump to the conclusion that it is more likely that the equipment I am listening to is "good," as opposed to, jumping to the conclusion that the equipment is in fact "bad," and that what I am hearing is a freak accident of room acoustics and system synergy.
Whereas if I walk into a room and it sounds "bad," I jump to the conclusion that what I am hearing is more likely to be the result of room acoustics or system synergy or setup or break-in or voltage drop from current starvation, or whatever.
In my own experience, these rubrics have consistently worked reliably enough for me that I shall continue to use them. I do not think that they are mutually contradictory.
To give a non-audio example: If a woman were first to see me while I was taking out the recycling after cleaning the bathroom, dressed for the occasions and all sweaty, she might have a hard time imaging that I actually do not look out of place in the lounge at Symphony Hall Boston--who would have imagined that sweaty guy knew how to tie a tie?
A single positive experience indicates that other positive experiences may be in store, whereas a single negative experience does not in and of itself mean that positive experiences under other conditions are impossible.
OK?
And, by the way, I can't remember ever disclaiming the validity of show auditions. If I have ever done so, I expect that it would have been to disclaim any dispositive finality of a bad audition, and not the converse.
JM
Follow Ups:
If a woman saw you taking the trash out all sweaty after cleaning the bathroom she would be SO turned on! Dude, she'll take the guy that cleans the bathroom over the blacktie one anytime!!!
I'll grant that my use of "to a man" may have been too sweeping. That said, however, I don't understand why, if it sounds good, it's reported as such, yet, if it doesn't, that doesn't really count.
Further, with all of the emphasis among critics upon long term listening as essential to a meaningful review, I simply don't see how any serious judgment, positive or negative, can be rendered within the confines of what can only be a severely limited amount of time available to listen at a show, especially to render a "best sound" designation when most have apparently not even heard everything on display.
No, seriously.
I am not claiming to have super powers. I only claim to have worked hard to get access to "normal" human powers, some of which are pretty remarkable.
I was driving on a semi-limited access divided four-lane road. I had my car's windows closed but the system set to "fresh air." It was a somewhat breezy day. A car was slowly overtaking me on the left. I was driving about 50 mph--the limit. All of a sudden, I had an instinctive, eww, who is smoking a nasty cigar? reaction. There were no cars in front of me in either lane for at least a quarter mile.
I looked left. Yup, Mr. Water-Cooled New Porsche 911, who was just then pulling even with me, was smoking a big cigar. With his car windows closed. OK, let's do the math. His car's system was exhausting cabin air out the back, air which had cigar smoke in it. Some of that air was caught by a gust of wind. The wind brought an increasingly diluted concentration of cigar smoke forward of both cars, and I drove into a hugely diluted cloud, some of which entered my car's system, and I smelled it--immediately. At the parts per billion level. I identified the smell, no conscious thought involved.
Sound works on the limbic system too. It's a survival thing. Your brain is hard-wired to over-ride conscious thought and redirect your eyes in the direction a loud sound comes from.
Years ago at CES, I heard an all-Audio Note Japan system with an IIRC $67,000 amp and $19,000 two-way bookshelf speakers. Within a few minutes, I recognized it as one of the standout systems I had ever heard in my life.
However, finding the right words to describe what I was hearing would have taken weeks if not months.
Cordially,
JM
...better-dressed too.
clark
If the meaning doesn't fit, you must omit.
But I was trying to cover non-dispositive finality.
As in, "I can't decide how I really feel about these speakers, but, I am not going to go any further because I am not going to get involved with $35,000 two-way standmounts. So, if what I am hearing is a closer approach to the audio truth than I have ever heard before, too bad, it's over, next!"
But I guess that's dispositive in its own way.
Perhaps I should have used "conclusive finality" versus "inconclusive finality."
Thanks,
JM
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
