|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Umm, he got two out of three. You identified the one, so the answer must be the other two. posted by Pat D on July 2, 2010 at 10:45:01:
"Nope, you miss the subtleties the English language is capable of."
Hardly. Your focus has been on the wrong word(s). Since you are the one who has brought up context several times, perhaps you ought to look at the other words in the sentences in question so you may construct a more thorough understanding of the intent.
"So you admit the obvious point that 2 channel stereo lacks a center channel, so c93 is flat out wrong."
I admit that a stereo sytem by definition lacks a physical center channel, but again, reading the entire paragraph quoted, and those lovely words that Olive chose to use, I suggest only that the point is nebulous enough to not merit the argument. But since you continue to press, I ask again that you read the full text to see how words are used. Please pay close attention to context. Also note how individual words are used. Sometimes the way a word is used at a later point in a paragraph can help define its use in a case where the meaning is not entirely clear.
Here's Olive's quote: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
Note how he state that the "much wider sweet spot" is "also missing." Again, note the word "also" in front of "missing." The word "missing" first appears in reference to the center channel. The use of "also" means that the word "missing" has the same function in the sentence. "A much wider sweet spot" is not something one can buy along with a pair of cables and half-and-half for the morning. It is, however, a result - an effect - of the system being described. Thus, the center channel that Olive is "given" is an effect. This is clearly underscored by the very subject of the sentence itself: it is not the configuration or number of channels that gives Olive the center channel, it is "the up-mixing." Again, an effect is being described, not an object. The effect being referred to is the information that now comes from the center speaker he has added, and it is created by his "upmixing" of stereo information to be able to create the "missing" information.
So no, Carcass is not flat out wrong at all.
"Sean says with a center channel, he can get a wider sweet spot than with2 channel stereo. Again, what's your problem?"
Well Pat, I wouldn't have a problem if that was what he said. But he didn't say that. You have modified his sentence to fit your agenda, and THAT is with what I have a problem.
Here's what Sean says: "The up-mixing gives me a center channel (missing in stereo), a much wider sweet spot (also missing), and a sense of envelopment and spaciousness that is entirely devoid in 2 channel reproduction."
He says that the much-wider sweet spot is "ALSO MISSING." He doesn't say it is bigger than the traditional. He says the traditional system's sweet spot is NOT THERE. AT ALL. MISSING. AWOL. And as he never defines what that sweet spot is wider than, it is not possible to understand his quantification. Had he said, "the center fill through the upmixing gives me a much wider sweet spot than the sweet spot of a traditional two-speaker set up," I wouldn't bat an eye. Funny how his choice of words creates the ambiguity. There's that subtlety of the English language for you.
"Now with the third, you change the language: it's not "that good ol' sense of envelopment and spaciousness," it's "a" sense of envelopment and spaciousness, as found in the types of system he likes, as compared to stereo, which lacks it. But you do not seem at all interested in a fair and reasonable interpretation."
Are you serious?? Pat, I gave you the quote in its proper context. My own change of words has no effect on the substance of the argument. To claim so is disingenuous on your part. What is "fair and reasonable" about that?? Pat, meet kettle.
I can't be bothered with repeating the same thing over and over about the meaning of "a sense of...," and "devoid of." I've posted about that in this thread a couple of times already. Maybe you might consider reading those posts rather than skimming and reacting? It is clear to me that you are too pedantic to understand usage, and won't take your own advice about paying attention to the context. It doesn't really matter, as you make me laugh.
"Meanwhile, you don't bother to mention c93's vicious and unfounded attacks on the qualifications of a respected audio researcher."
Why should I? If that was your real issue with Carcass, you should have called him out on that specifically, instead of hurling your own insults back (your attack on his English). You clearly don't find the act of insult so disturbing as you throw around plenty of your own. My problem, as I described to you before, is with your attempt to replace the interpretation of rather ambiguous words and phrases with inarguable Pat-approved hypocrisy.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- It is geting worse for you. But it IS amusing to witness. - robert young 14:42:27 07/02/10 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
