|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.26.121.191
In Reply to: Perhaps You're Right posted by thetubeguy1954 on February 2, 2007 at 12:17:48:
TG54 - I guess having come from being an Objectivist in my early daysSome folks obviously believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, it will eventually be accepted as truth.
WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs, WMDs.
Some even begin to believe their own lies. They acually convince themselves.
If you were an objectivist, then had severe brain damage from an accident, then I suppose this sort of scenario *could* have occured.
Otherwise, you were always a subjectivist. You just didn't know it.cheers,
AJ
I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours
Follow Ups:
POLLYinFLA,Your constant refusal to accept that I was an Objectivist who turned Subjectivist in no way lessens the fact that this is indeed the TRUTH! Your inability to accept that fact that once I learned to trust my ears and what I heard over measurements printed on piece a paper is simply due to your need to believe you hold the ONE TRUE WAY to audio nirvana. So POLLYinFLA I suggest you look at your own advice and realize that you've begun to believe your own lies and have actually convinced yourself you're telling the truth, when you're not!
The reality is this I WAS an objectivist, I believed all "properly designed" amps essentially sounded the same, I believed all "properly designed" wires sounded the same and I believed tubed equipment was an inferior technology that couldn't possibly sound as good as solid state audio components could. You're 100% incorrect in your beliefs that I had severe brain damage from an accident. What really happened was I decided to have an open mind (unlike you) and listen for myself and come to my own conclusions. Doing that showed me most, not all "properly designed" amps be they tubed or solid state do NOT sound the same, most not all "properly designed" wires do NOT sound the same and some, not all tubed equipment sounds better than solid state does, but the very best tubed equipment definitely sounds better than solid state does! Even more than that the very best tubed equipment provides the most realistic replication of live unamplified music I have ever heard! As hard as it is for you to accept this, tubed equipment is NOT was an inferior technology. It can sound every bit as good as any solid state audio components does and the very best tubed equipment represents the SOTA in audio amplification today.
Sorry to burst your bubble POLLYinFLA but I wasn't always a Subjectivist, but I am one today. No matter how much you lie to yourself and deny this it's still remains the truth. Perhaps if you cleaned out your ears and bought a decent soild state amp, instead of using that Pro QSC crap, you'd also realize not all "properly designed" amps be they tubed or solid state essentially sound the same, most not all "properly designed" wires do NOT sound the same and some, not all tubed equipment sounds better than solid state does, but the very best tubed equipment definitely does.
Thetubeguy1954
I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist, I was an objectivist,
tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better, tubes do sound better,
SQUUAAAAAAAAWWKK, flap, flap...
The saga continues...Cheers,
AJ
I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours
POLLYinFLA,I know the truth, you rambling ranter of bird-brained, bumbling twit tales. Clean all the crap from the bottom of your bird cage, it's getting stuck in your ears!
For some stange reason that only makes sense in POLLY's Parrot Paradise you seem to believe that repeating the truth that I was (past tense) an Objectivist, who now realizes tubes (usually) sound better that solid state amps, somehow makes this statements an untruth.
What amazes me most is you that you honestly think you're witty and humorous. But the reality is you come across as an idiot with nothing intelligent to say. So rather than keeping your mouth shut with the hopes that you might seem intelligent for doing so, you just berate and disparage anything that doesn't agree with your POV. In your warped mine you believe you're this hot shit in a champagne glass. Unfortunately the sad truth is you're only lukewarm diarrhea floating in a dixie cup.
If I'm lucky I'll never have the displeasure of actually having to meet you in person...
Thetubeguy1954
"The reality is this I WAS an objectivist, I believed all "properly designed" amps essentially sounded the same, I believed all "properly designed" wires sounded the same and I believed tubed equipment was an inferior technology that couldn't possibly sound as good as solid state audio components could."This part of your problem! Like a saying I grew up, "half truth is no truth at all". I suggest that you read Peter Azcel comments on the conditions that need to be satisfied for two different types of amplifier sound identical through the same set of speakers, goes without saying playing in the same room.
Secondly, the fact that tube technology is obsolete technology and certainly is inferior in certain respects, however sounds good is a totally different criterion, for example, LPs are an inferior music carrier than hirez digital in absolute objective performance terms, but many people prefer its sound, the issue is that the preference cannot be traced by performance superiority because it is not.
So, it would seem you started out with the wrong belief system in the first place.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Sorry,But I've read Aczel's comments on the conditions that need to be satisfied for two different types of amplifier sound identical through the same set of speakers. I've also read his biggest blunder of all, i.e. “The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio” it is good for a laugh though... I find Aczel to be a joke! P. Aczel & J. Hirsch are twins sons of different mothers.
Although I greatly prefer CDs for their ease of usage, non pops, ticks and surface noise I don't know that I can agree that LPs are an inferior music carrier than hirez digital. You like many others here seem to believe measurements tell it all. I just cannot believe that. There's something when the ear/brain is used as the final arbitrator as to what does and doesn't sound like live unamplified music in absolute performance terms, that measurements cannot detect.
The real issue is the ear/brain combo is NEVER fooled into believing live music is recorded and recorded music is live. It seems to be quite capable in this area, so I disagree that the preference cannot be traced by performance superiority, because I disagree as to what constitutes superiority in the first place. I'll trust my ears before a mic and a piece of test equipment any day of the week. There are papers that indicate that the way the ear/brain combo hears (via masking and other traits) is a lot closer to how SETs replicates music than a solid state amp does. So if an SET replicates music in a way that closer replicates how the ear/brain combo hears it would present a more accurate reproduction of music to a given ear/brain combo. Yet at the same time to a mic and piece of test equipment the solid state amp would sound more accurate!
Sorry Hobby but mics and test equipment don't do my listening for me! My individual ear/brain combo and the psycho-acoustics invloved do. They say SETs sound more like live unamplified music than any other audio toplogy they've ever heard. No matter what belief system I started out with my present belief system has enabled me to assemble a system that provides me with an overwhelming sense of enjoyment and immersement of music that not ONE of my previous solid state based systems ever came close to doing...
You're free to use your "properly designed" solid state amps to achieve whatever levels of accuracy the mics and test equipment tells you you've achieved. Me? I'll stick to the path I'm travelling. I've discovered few if any who ever find this path ever leave it...
Thetubeguy1954
> If you were an objectivist, then had severe brain damage from an
> accident, then I suppose this sort of scenario *could* have occured.
> Otherwise, you were always a subjectivist. You just didn't know it.I have always had problems with audiophiles using the terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" because people who consider their subjective experiences of sound are not in conflict in any way whatsoever with those that consider what is going on objectively. There would have to be something pretty weird about the world if this was not the case.
The conflict seems to arise for two reasons: "subjectivists" have incorrect beliefs about what is going on objectively and lack the simple intelligence to recognise what is subjective and what is objective and "objectivists" often appear to want the sound impinging on the ear to be the reality rather than what is perceived.
TG54 describes himself as previously being an "objectivist" and by this I suspect he means that he took published figures about objective performance and projected all sorts of attributes onto them that they did not possess concerning how nice his hi-fi would sound. Now if there are to be "objectivist audiophiles" this seems a pretty accurate description to me since the focus of interest is objective data and he must hold audiophile beliefs (i.e. scientifically invalid beliefs) in order to do his projections. Reasonable?
The real distinction, as ever, is between those that hold incorrect beliefs about what is going on and those that are better informed about what has been established. This is not subjective versus objective (no conflict) but ignorant versus educated/informed (conflict at least while the educated remain engaged which usually isn't for long - see Wikipedia for example).
Do you consider yourself to be an "objective audiophile" or a "non-audiophile"? If the former, what meaning do you attach to the terms audiophile and objective?
I'm neither. I'm just an errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.cheers,
AJ
I contend that we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours
> I'm neither.If you are an audiophile and you are not an "objective audiophile" then you can only be a "subjective audiophile". That is TG54s tribe and I am not sure he wants you as a member.
Seriously though, being happy to call yourself an audiophile is of interest because it indicates some consider the word to simply mean "audio enthusiast" without necessarily being a believer. It doesn't have that meaning among my peers where it would mean believer.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: