 
|
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 |
24.218.104.76
In Reply to: RE: This is so simple I really can't believe we are having this discussion. posted by Don Till on February 23, 2010 at 19:39:16
I'm not going to waste any more time on this subject with you.
Either you persist in using words differently from everyone else to the extent that communication is impossible, or your mind is incapable of understanding the concepts and distinctions that are involved in this discussion.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Follow Ups:
"Either you persist in using words differently from everyone else to the extent that communication is impossible, or your mind is incapable of understanding the concepts and distinctions that are involved in this discussion."
Nah, how about this for an argument:
Given that I've read nothing to cause me to believe that Don is nuts or addled why would he be posting to an audiophile board that sound quality doesn't matter? I'm thinking that big wavery shape I see is a boat and when I break water I can just make out a guy at the rail with a net...
It's so easy to hook fish if know the right lures and for audiophiles it seems like the more obviously phony they are the better. Take RBNG's 'work' over the years on this very forum. Thousands of hits from one old rusty spinner that was laughably bogus and yet so irresistible.
R.
Why must audiophiles insist that recording quality is the most important aspect effecting sound quality?
No doubt about it, in the real world, the contents of the recording and the playback system/environment play much bigger roles.
It is the mother of all audiophile myths. Many of us seem to believe we can buy expensive equipment and somehow it earns us the credibility to condemn the sound, the music and recordings of an entire industry.
Such a complacent resolution is really nothing but a pathetic resignation. Luckily not all everyone is condemned to sharing such a snot filled bitch rag.
Why must audiophiles insist that recording quality is the most important aspect effecting sound quality?
We don't. Most of us are addicted to music. Exceptional recordings are a bonus.
It is the mother of all audiophile myths
You are either not an audiophile or don't understand the meaning of "myth". Possibly both.
rw
"We don't."
Speak for yourself - there's endless evidence indicating that many audiophiles blame bad sound on their recordings. Ie. good recording quality = good sound and bad recording quality = bad sound.
You can see it here in spades with the disagreement with my comments but if you take the time to search on the words "poop" and "shit" and "crap" you can see it in the other forums going back to day one.
Well I consider myself an audiophile though at times it's embarrassing to do so and the definition of a myth is
1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis offact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenonof nature.
2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
As an audiophile I dismiss as a myth the following - Ie. good recording quality = good sound and bad recording quality = bad sound.
Pure and simple it's a myth! And again I am an audiophile.
"there's endless evidence indicating that many audiophiles blame bad sound on their recordings. Ie. good recording quality = good sound and bad recording quality = bad sound.
"
No good recording quality doesn't always equal good sound and no one here would claim that, so strawman again!! If the system is bad a good recording will also sound at least less good than it could if not outright bad.
A bad recording will likely sound bad on all systems but still may be enjoyable to the listener.
"As an audiophile I dismiss as a myth the following - Ie. good recording quality = good sound and bad recording quality = bad sound.
"
Again, this is some artificial strawman myth you have constructed that no one here would agree with or disagree with wholeheartedly so it CAN'T be a myth.
No good recording quality doesn't always equal good sound and no one here would claim that, so strawman again!! "Oh ok so everyone agrees with me?
"If the system is bad a good recording will also sound at least less good than it could if not outright bad."
Ok and a bad recording will sound just as less good. I think we agree.
"A bad recording will likely sound bad on all systems but still may be enjoyable to the listener."
No. A bad recording will sound like a bad recording on a good system but it may still sound good. On lesser systems we will not be able to judge recording quality. But there is no reason at all to conclude the bad recording quality means bad sound on a good system.
Honest I think your way of thinking can lead to building systems that are less good.
Edits: 02/27/10 03/02/10
Analog Scott has already trapped you in your faulty and circular logic above. He gets you to admit that recording quality affects sound quality... the main "myth" you were claiming to bust!! You have been exposed and your position is laughable.
wasn't meant so much as a trap. I was just trying to show Don the mistake in his assertion by eliminating the one variable he kept on tripping over, content. Perhaps we as audiophiles are so acustomed to seperating musical content, recording/mastering/manufacturing of source material and playback qualities when we make evaluations that it was difficult for us to imagine an inability to look at those qualities seperately. It seems Don really can't seperate those qualities in his evaluations. Kind of like a person who is color blind claiming color is a myth. I don't think his logic is flawed so much as is his ability to seperate the components of sound that all add up to determine the quality.
...good recording quality = good sound and bad recording quality = bad sound.
Illustrate this assertion with some evidence.
rw
"Illustrate this assertion with some evidence."
What's this?
Clearly it's an assertion I've provided plenty of evidence against in this thread. The only way I could agree with that assertion is if I accept someone else definition of good sound.
And me it's to high a bar for me to chose in order to join in on the circle jerk with the rest of the boys.
What's this?
Evidence is backing up your assertions with proof. Examples. Posts. Something other than speculation.
Clearly it's an assertion I've provided plenty of evidence against in this thread.
You have provided ZERO substantiation, only your bizarre point of view. Cite examples, Sparky. Translation: post quotes by others. Do you understand?
rw
"You have provided ZERO substantiation, only your bizarre point of view.
Dude you pretty slow, I'm mean like real slow as if the belt is broken, but I'm going to slow down this amazingly simple topic a bit more just for you.
1.) I've provided concrete and solid examples of things which reqardless of how good they were recorded would sound BAD.
2.) I've provided examples of recordings which are by audiophile standards less than high quality recordings that sound wonderful on good audio equipment.
3.) Within these current threads numerous other audiophiles have commented that good recordings sound good and bad recording sound bad. But this is historical the position assumed by most people who consider themselves to be audiophiles. You can search the archives for other such comments, which are easy to find, AND you can search on the internet to find plenty of audiophile content supporting my contention that audiophiles believe good sound = good recording quality and bad sound = bad recording quality.
4.) There's a whole freeking industry supplying audiophile grade recordings to the industry because of the belief that high quality recordings sound better.
Now go study the above, ask your mom to help with the big words, then come back later to thank me for my patience in explaining it again to you.
"Why must audiophiles insist that recording quality is the most important aspect effecting sound quality?"
Who said it was the MOST important? It is important of course. Very important even to sound quality but not necessarily musical enjoyment.
"It is the mother of all audiophile myths"
You mean the mother of all strawmen?? Yep I agree it is a strawman.
"credibility to condemn the sound, the music and recordings of an entire industry.
"
WTF are you even talking about here? Who is condemning an entire industry? Strawman number 2 in this post.
"Such a complacent resolution is really nothing but a pathetic resignation. Luckily not all everyone is condemned to sharing such a snot filled bitch rag.
"
Complacent resolution??? Pathetic resignation??? Snot filled bitch rag???????????????????????????????????????
WTF are you blathering about???????????????????????????????????
Nothing in this post but 2 strawmen and a complete random assembly of words that mean absolutely squat!
"Who said it was the MOST important? It is important of course. Very important even to sound quality but not necessarily musical enjoyment."
Sure yet you fail to suggest anything else is more important when it comes to sound quality?
"You mean the mother of all strawmen??
Sure yet you agree that it is true. If not why argue with my point at all. Huh?
"WTF are you even talking about here? Who is condemning an entire industry? "
Waaaa! Lots of popular music sounds like poop on your stereo! As if it's the rest of the worlds fault that your system sounds bad!
" Complacent resolution??? "
Most records simply aren't good enough to sound good on great audio systems!
" Pathetic resignation???"
My system is just too good!
" Snot filled bitch rag??"
Recording engineers and musicians don't give a crap about good sound!
"Lots of popular music sounds like poop on your stereo"
These are your words not mine and whether it sounds good or not is relative to my other much better recordings of classical and jazz music.
"Most records simply aren't good enough to sound good on great audio systems!"
Again, your words not mine.
"My system is just too good!
"
Again, your words not mine. My system sounds excellent on a wide range of recordings but some sound much better than others...I don't expect you to understand as you have made it clear you don't.
"Recording engineers and musicians don't give a crap about good sound!
"
Some do, many don't nothing snot filled or bitch raggy about it.
Will you admit your deceipt and call me your own personal audiophile guru if I attach links to you making comments exactly or very similar to those you deny in your previous post?
It's not really my purpose to show your failing memory in all it's glory.
I've done this before and if I recall correctly you simply disappear for a week or somethng. Looking to spend sometime away from Prophead?
Go for it if you think you must. I am confident that all you will do is put up some previous posts where I used words like "some" and you have twisted to "all" with regard to sound quality of recordings.
You have put the so-called gotcha posts before and I refuted them before as well. I can refute them again.
but I'll never forget how you've told us your system sounds like "dog poop", your "no pain no gain" comments as well as how great your boombox sounds on some recordings (Bob Seger in particular) that are unlistenable on your main system.
Personally I think you are much more credible when try to defend your position instead of weaseling out of it as you have been doing lately. I mean really you are one of those guys who speak condescendingly of equipment that sounds good - remember your remarks about the worst kinds of equipment and pleasant sounds?
Maybe I should consider your shift in position a sincere one, not just lip service to avoid inevitable humilation (again!), and then I could say to myself a job well done.
Thanks Morricab you've made my day!
"but I'll never forget how you've told us your system sounds like "dog poop", your "no pain no gain" comments as well as how great your boombox sounds on some recordings (Bob Seger in particular) that are unlistenable on your main system."
All taken out of context and twisted to suit your purposes. Go on find the orignal posts! It will be clear that you twist to suit your own ends.
"
Maybe I should consider your shift in position a sincere one, not just lip service to avoid inevitable humilation (again!), and then I could say to myself a job well done.
"
My position is always clear and always consistent. Yours is never clear nor consistent. I would say you are the one coming out of these exchanges with egg on your face. Only you are too clueless to realize that pretty much everyone here disagrees with what you are saying (at least what they can understand from you convoluted texts).
"My position is always clear and always consistent. Yours is never clear nor consistent."
Sure your "no pain, no gain", good recording quality = good sound & bad recording quality = bad sound and, your system sounds like dog poop comments are quite clear. Not to mention your comments about Bob Seger sounding great on your boombox!
What's troubling is how you've gone all out to deny the significance of such comments - that's all you are doing now!
So no your position is not consistent. You've got no problem whatsoever demeaning someone who likes the sound of their system over a wide range of recording qualities with comments like it "sounds pleasant" or "sounds good on pop music". Yet when push comes to shove you chose to wimp out and whine about your comments being taken out of context!
What's clear is when it suits your purposes you you'll admit how crappy your system sounds when compared to a boombox yet when someone calls you out on such comments you cry FOUL. Waaaaa!
" Only you are too clueless to realize that pretty much everyone here disagrees with what you are saying
I don't think so but so what?
I have made comments that many bad recordings sound better on limited systems because the limited system hides many of the flaws with its own limited resolving power. I have never said otherwise. However; I never said that they all sound "like poop" on my main system I said that many don't sound so good but that they are still enjoyable musically. Again, your inability to separate the impression of SOUND quality from musical enjoyment leads to you taking what I have said and running it through the DonT filter, to get something entirely different from it. I have made it clear from the beginning that I am not talking about ALL bad recordings and that the situation is much more complex than your so-called "myth".
You have repeatedly tried again and again to twist meanings to suit your own purposes but everyone here sees that is your MO. So twist on!! I am done with you.
Post a Followup:
| 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 ]
