|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.73.83.124
In Reply to: Re: Does anyone really think this? posted by morricab on February 9, 2007 at 03:10:33:
Yes, I've looked at the Cheever thesis and read the Stereophile piece. This is important stuff, dispending with one of the more common explanations for why people like SET stuff so much.I just find it hard to believe that there are serious audio types in the world that think that you can "preserve" something about the original signal by distorting it more.
Follow Ups:
Let's take a look at the full extract shall we (emphasis added):
--
I have seen arguments that SE arrangements or those with no overall feedback, 'may have higher distortion, but this does not matter as they preserver harmonic content, and hence the timbre(sound quality) of the music.' Alas as the above results show, this argument simply does not hold water unless we listen to one note at a time and avoid anything but the simplest chords using perfect integer ratios!
--For starters as quote is not attributed to anyone in particular how do we know that it isn't just a paraphrase representing the writer's opinion of the views of SET advocates, or for that matter just something that some non-technical audiophile wrote in an internet post?
More importantly however the quote doesn't actually *attribute* the preservation of harmonic content to the "SE arrangements" higher distortion, does it?... yet that certainly appears to be *your* interpretation, i.e.:
--
I mean, serious people? I'm referring to this:
> > "...as they preserver harmonic content, and hence the timbre(sound quality) of the music." < <Again, does any real, serious person think that harmonic distortion equates with "preserv(ing) harmonic content"? It seems to me a remarkably simplistic--and transparently incorrect--claim, and I notice that it is not attributed to anyone. Is there any citation in the original?
--What gives? Is this a case of "When in Rome"?... you certainly come off like just another ranting PH "objective" indignant-eophile!
How about a little more care in the future?
TIA
...I'm the one coming off as indignant here. What's odd as that we--you and I--are making the same point more or less and you're attacking me for it. "Does anyone really think this?" is, I think you'll agree, equivalent to asking "is he creating a strawman?"So it cuts two ways: I'll admit that I think anyone who believes what this guy says the SET-heads believe is not technically astute.
But I also am not convinced that serious people believe what he seems to be attributing to them. Notice that I, too, asked if there was a citation in my first post in this thread. Consider me skeptical.
I need to be careful here. I just realized--I had not noticed this before--that this is taken from a current audio magazine, which means that I should not comment further.
"I'll admit that I think anyone who believes what this guy says the SET-heads believe is not technically astute.(emphasis added)
Good! That's showing more care. :)
As for indignation that's certainly how I interpreted your comments, e.g. "I mean, serious people?", seemed a little indignant to me, heck one could even be forgiven for suspecting undo haste on your part, i.e. surely you meant "serious ly people?", no?
But you know perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps "indignant" isn't appropriate, in fact I'm more inclined to suspect "excitable" is more fitting, after all in response to my suggestion you exert greater care (something you seem to more or less acknowledge) you claim I'm "attacking" you!... goodness!
> > I'm more inclined to suspect "excitable" is more fitting, < <...just how bored (i.e., un-excited) I am right now...
You're right on one point though--I was a little careless. I did not feel that you were attacking ME--but that you were attacking my argument, which you also were making, more or less, which seemed weird.
Would you please point out the argument I was making that you seem to believe was in agreement with yours... Oh, and while you're at it, please point out the agrument you were making.To recap, my (initial) post (to you) was entirely concerned with cautioning you against careless reasoning, i.e. pointing out the quote (whatever its source) didn't even support the notion of equating harmonic distortion with "preserv(ing) harmonic content"!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: