In Reply to: One of your problems is that you think about words and not about things. posted by Pat D on March 30, 2007 at 08:20:08:
Pat D,I'm quite saddened to see you back tracking yet once again from something you previously said. This is one of the reason's I call you an audio politician as that's what politicians are always doing too. Back on March 9th you responded to my statement that Klaus is now objecting to. I stated: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
You Pat responded with: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." The complete post can be seen below. So first you agreed that most rationalists accept that as well. Yet now you claim: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him." Thus we see that first you support Real JJ's acceptance & belief that most rational accept my statement AND you support Klaus's objection to that same statement! Talk about 2-faced and having no real postion on the issue!
Next you almost agree with my postion again, after agreeing with Klaus that I'm wrong. For now you state: "The problem is that a technical measurement of the amplifier's output makes sense, but you cannot directly compare the output of an amplifier to either a live performance or to the "the human ear/brain's deteremination [sic]." The amplifier doesn't make any music except as part of a system, so you have the speakers and other components of the system in addition. So your definition has application to the system, not the amplifier alone."
Pat any moron knows an amplifier is part of a system. So why you feel the need to explain what is the blatantly obvious to myself and everyone else here is beyond me. However I can remove an amp from the system and replace it with another can't I? But as I stated today's accepted measurements will NOT reveal squat diddly about how well that amp, in that system will replicate music, and whether or not it actually sounds like live music. Just because I cannot get a close replica of a live concert performance in my home, doesn't mean I shouldn't strive for an audio system that can get as close to that event as possible does it? Thus what I do is use simpler events like a small jazz group recorded live and then I try to replicate that live event as closely as I possibly can. I'm not talking about some vague subjective opinion. I'm talking about a violin sounding like a violin a guitar sounding like a guitar, a saxophone sounding like a saxophone etc.
Fortunately for everyone here you've now revealed your true colors and beliefs. It's plain to see that you just disagree with anything I write. For now you've both agreed and disagreed with the same statement from me, by first stating that most rationalists will agree with my statement because that's what Real JJ believes and now disagreeing with my statement because Klaus does and he knows more than you do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: One of your problems is that you think about words and not about things. - thetubeguy1954 11:32:32 03/30/07 (4)
- I just noticed another variation in your terminology. - Pat D 18:40:41 03/31/07 (2)
- Re: I just noticed another variation in your terminology. - thetubeguy1954 08:51:32 04/01/07 (1)
- You still don't explain what measurements you mean. - Pat D 12:34:49 04/01/07 (0)
- Re: One of your problems is that you think about words and not about things. - Pat D 12:45:30 03/30/07 (0)