![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: Re: "He adds to the rift... rather than seeking to bridge it." Hmm... posted by Steve Eddy on October 17, 2006 at 10:05:14:
...when they don't want to see 'em they dismiss 'em.The point I clearly made, which you ignore, is that Sprey has all the needed qualifications of an "objectivist"; these are dismissed by such as yourself only because you disagree with his findings. How objective is that?
Follow Ups:
...who lacked ANY of the qualifications needed to be a subjectivist.> > > The point I clearly made, which you ignore, is that Sprey has all the needed qualifications of an "objectivist" < < <
![]()
Now you may not think that listening is important... but if you want to specify that lack as a qualification for an objectivist, be my guest.
We test our hearing ability to be confident differences are really audible. If they are, we feel qualified to voice subjective opinions just like any subjective audiophile.Subjective audiophiles just assume they would pass this hearing test.
Objective audiophiles prove they know what they hear while subjective audiophiles merely assume they "know what they hear".
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
My Stereo is MUCH BETTER than Your Stereo
![]()
RBG you are so Lunatic Fringe Objectivist even your audio idol Peter Aczel doesn't agree with you!Peter Aczel admits "The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true. ANYONE (emphasis added) without actual hearing impairment can hear what they hear, but only those with training and experience know what to make of it, (and) how to interpret it."
Surely you jest! That actually makes sense! Aczel is so far removed from reality that I can't believe he came back to earth long enough to figure this out. Wow! That's one helluva find, Tubeguy! Are you sure he didn't finish with something like "...but as we all know, there's nothing to hear anyway and anyone who says otherwise is a mouth-breathing, drooling imbecile"?
Yes Kerr Peter Aczel admitted that! It was actually something he said quite awhile back. I believe I found the quote when the Audio Critic was free.Personally I could never understand how Peter could say that and deny amps, preamps, wires etc sound different!
> Personally I could never understand how Peter could say that and deny amps, preamps, wires etc sound different! <He used to be able to hear differences but I think he's running a crusade against the audiophile community and press for ostracizing him over the Fourier speaker fiasco. But it was an interesting quote because it is clearly from his objectivist era based on his derisive use of the term "golden ears", yet it shows an amazing degree of intelligence that I didn't know he possessed. Thanks for digging this up.
As I have pointed out before, Tom has a habit of quoting people with a reference. In fact, the quotation can be found in Aczel's article, "The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio," under No. 10, "The Golden Ear Lie," and I'm pretty sure you have read it--but apparently didn't understand all of it. The point made is fairly basic to Aczel's point of view.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
![]()
After reading the article again and in context, I retract my comment that Aczel showed intelligence with that comment. Thanks for clearing that up.
![]()
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
![]()
...that this is a bad thing? ;-)FWIW, I'm a "know what I hear" kinda guy, but I also allow that I'm not going to be infallible in all of my assessments. I don't consider that to be within the realm of terrestrial possibility. I can tell you unequivocally that my assessments, taken as a whole, have produced stunningly good results as implemented. How do I know this you might ask? Because I know what I hear of course.
![]()
> I also allow that I'm not going to be infallible in all of my assessments. <You would also not be infallible if you DBT'd everything. I'm a "know what I hear" person as well... once I spend a fair amount of time listening critically on each component. I'm with you - I'll take false positives over false negatives. Perhaps I've spent a few too many dollars for good sound but that's better than spending too few, IMHO.
![]()
a
![]()
The point I clearly made, which you ignore, is that Sprey has all the needed qualifications of an "objectivist"
Mmmm. I wasn't aware that PhDs and profiles in newspapers were any sort of needed qualification for an "objectivist." Where is that rule written?
these are dismissed by such as yourself only because you disagree with his findings. How objective is that?
First, I don't recall having said anything about his findings one way or the other. Care to provide a quote from me to back that up or will you be withdrawing that claim?
Second, I have said many times over the years that one's words don't stand or fall based on the "credentials" of those who say them, but on the veracity of what is actually said. And that applies to both those I may agree with as well as those I may disagree with.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, let's see it.
se
![]()
![]()
And no, I'm not inviting Jim to drop a brick on my head.Just noting Clark's silence since being asked to support the statements he'd made against me.
se
![]()
![]()
> > And no, I'm not inviting Jim to drop a brick on my head. < <:-)
:-)
Didn't think I was ever going to let you live that one down, did ya? :)
se
![]()
![]()
> > Didn't think I was ever going to let you live that one down, did ya? :) < <
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: