|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
96.25.74.167
In Reply to: RE: Oops posted by Mungo Jerry on November 28, 2012 at 06:20:33
"I'll vote for jrlaudio as the most knowledgeable poster on this forum."
His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears.
However his grasp of science and engineering is so funky that I'd wager his involvement has always been at least a step removed from the actual work. Perhaps he's been involved at the administrative or financial levels.
That being said, I appreciate his participation and think he brings valuable insights and experiences to the table. Hopefully we all do. While I could go much further than Jon did WRT issues regarding his conclusions, that would not be appropriate for this environment which encourages open discussions and allows, nay encourages kicking things about without requiring any particular level of "proof" or supporting data.
I'm far more interested in lively discussions and feel that it's up to each participant to winnow out the wheat from the chaff for themselves. If they can. While there is the danger of folks being lead astray, so what? It's just a hobby! The upside is being motivated into learning more about things that you may have always regarded as a given and discovering ways, often very inexpensive ones, that you can alter them to significantly enhance your home audio experience. And to hopefully give you some insights into complex systems. In other words, the real world.
If there were lives or serious money at stake my arguments would be quite different, but this is all in fun.
Rick
Follow Ups:
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears. "That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.
And BTW to your point - sure they would be better off if they successfully understood the underlying phenomena - but really these are audiophiles not engineers and designers. There's no reason at all for audiophiles to have to tread those waters.
I would submit that understanding measurements and measured performance is not a requirement for an audiophile, and even more so for an audiophile using a rigorous comparison methodology. IMO though such concepts may help an audiophile get good results more quickly but taken too far (an who knows how far that it is) they may also blind that person from the gear that could give them the greatest listening satisfaction.
I think most designers and engineers should rely on measurements much more than an audiophile. That said IMO the best designers and engineers are the ones who finalize their designs based on listening.
Measurements are important rivaling listening on the design side - but no matter how you slice this pie how one qualifies any spec or performance measurement is a subjective opinion. On the audiophile side, measurements fall far below in comparison to ones listening impression.
Edits: 12/05/12 12/05/12 12/05/12
"His major point, which I believe is that audiophiles would be better off it they tried diligently to understand and quantify the phenomena underlying what they hear, is music to my ears."
'That's not what he said - he insists upon the importance of audiophiles understanding and quantifying audio performance via measurements.'
----------
Actually the bit I was thinking of was in his "follow up", to wit:
"The point I was trying to make is it is not sufficient to make observations (without measurement) and draw conclusions on affects and develop theories as to causes."
That comment was "music to my ears" because I completely agree. It's one thing to just hack stuff together by trial and error and be happy with the results. Fact is, I've done that very thing myself. It's quite another to believe that having done so with success means that you now know what's going on. You may have some notions but without putting them to the test that's all they remain. And the initial test is correlated measurements or successful structured testing.
I am more than willing to share what I've done and discovered and in that I'm a piker compared with many folks here who have done orders of magnitude more things empirically than I have and are happy to share their experiences. In fact that's the best part of AA, I love hearing about other people's experiences, life's too short to have them all myself.
I just wish that "I don't really know" was an answer held in higher esteem here. Learning to separate assumptions from knowns is a major step on the road to understanding. While assumptions or ignorance are always part of the deal at some level since we can never know everything precisely (Heisenberg was right), at the energy levels we work with in audio we can know enough to safely ignore the rest.
Rick
quote carcass: just another cheap and deaf pseudo-scientist.
I ask you Jon, is that not name-calling?
Major double standard happening here.
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: