|
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 bjh on February 9, 2007 at 08:02:43:
...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.
Follow Ups:
"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: