|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: Re: A Realistic Story Based On Facts Would Be To Have The Subjectivist Patient Being Misdiagnosed By The Objectivist Doc posted by AJinFLA on February 19, 2007 at 09:32:05:
Well POLLYinFLA "if" you trust your senses (which I highly doubt) that would make you one of us lying Subjectivists wouldn't it? Funny part is in order to make yourself feel you're correct you attribute things to me I don't endorse, but rather YOU talk about. Things like ghost hearing or devil seeing is your typical topic of bird-brained banter, not mine!I own nothing that's cryo freezed, I never done any CD grinding, I don't use magic dots keeping nor have I attempted hat racks buying. If I've talked with a delusional and lying audiophool that would be when I'm talking with you. I've also said many times I believe some things *may/can* make a real, audible/measurable difference. Some don't. So is that another POLLYinFLA parrot remark?
What really amazes me is you always talk about my Mastersound Reference 845 and Alaintes, once agin to try and make yourself look good, but being the babeling bird-brain you are, you forget what the truth is and that really makes me laugh!
I get another great laugh when I realize in your typical bird-brained approach you modified Orions so that your QSC we be tolerable to listen to. So POLLYinFLA the reality is when attempt you try to insult me by calling my Aliantes little floppy coned speakers, you're actually insulting many of your fellow Objectivists who own similar type speakers, like Pat D's, Paradigm Sigs! FYI my Aliantes are considerably better than the Paradigms in side-by-side comparisons. You seem to forget I also owned controlled directivity speakers (RCA LC9A) like you do, I also own dipoles albeit ribbon hybrids, like you do. So I'm a lot more versitile in what I can listen to bird brain. Add to that I own an Italian Audio Analoge Puccini solid state integrated amp.
So I believe I'll trust my senses which hear many more different types of speakers and amp combos that yours does. Poor poor POLLYinFLA he thinks he has all the answers when in all honesty he doesn't even have a clue what the questions really are. My wife and I will have a good laugh on the way home about this. So thanks for that at least! Hey it looks like you're actually good for something after all... like the clown you are.
Follow Ups:
TG54 - Well POLLYinFLA "if" you trust your senses (which I highly doubt) that would make you one of us lying Subjectivists wouldn't it?It would? How so?
I don't lie to my doctor any more than I lie about hearing differences because I am supposed to, when there really are none. Remember how audiophiles hear differences when told a change was made when none was, or people getting better taking sugar pills?TG54 - What really amazes me is you always talk about my Mastersound Reference 845 and Alaintes, once agin to try and make yourself look good, but being the babeling bird-brain you are, you forget what the truth is and that really makes me laugh!
I try to look good by talking about your speakers and Mastersound Nutrasweet 845? How?
TG54 - I get another great laugh when I realize in your typical bird-brained approach you modified Orions so that your QSC we be tolerable to listen to.
I had no idea that is why my QSC is so tolerable. Thanks for letting me know and sharing a laugh too.
TG54 - So POLLYinFLA the reality is when attempt you try to insult me by calling my Aliantes little floppy coned speakers, you're actually insulting many of your fellow Objectivists who own similar type speakers, like Pat D's, Paradigm Sigs!
Why must it be an insult to you? When you state my QSC sounds like crap, it's your subjective opinion based on delusion, not measurements. I laugh.
When I state your Aliante has a floppy poly cone and chaotic, uncontrolled directivity, I am simply pointing out factual features that you prefer. Why be insulted? Because they are real and not imagined? Measured rather than delusion based?TG54 - FYI my Aliantes are considerably better than the Paradigms in side-by-side comparisons.
That is purely subjective. Holds true for you but not necessarily others. I do understand how a subjectivist cannot comprehend this, being illogical, irrational, I know what I hear, etc.
You most likely prefer the Aliante for the distortion you crave. Measure both and you will See what I mean (but of course, not hear it).TG54 - You seem to forget I also owned controlled directivity speakers (RCA LC9A) like you do, I also own dipoles albeit ribbon hybrids, like you do. So I'm a lot more versitile in what I can listen to bird brain.
That's nice. You own lots of mediocrity in different flavors. Combine all those features one day or listen to someone who has and you might finally hear something decent. There is hope for you yet.
TG54 - Add to that I own an Italian Audio Analoge Puccini solid state integrated amp.
Ok, so you like SS glare just like the vast majority of humans. Good for you. Probably paid way too much for something no better and most likely much worse than my QSC. The pretty looks and price should let it deludesound much better though.
TG54 - Poor poor POLLYinFLA he thinks he has all the answers when in all honesty he doesn't even have a clue what the questions really are. My wife and I will have a good laugh on the way home about this. So thanks for that at least! Hey it looks like you're actually good for something after all... like the clown you are.
I wish I had all the answers, but like most humans I am still learning every day. Glad the wife enjoys the banter. I warned you about letting her know about grown men arguing in cyberspace about stereo delusions. If she's a good sport about it, then by all means bring her along when you come over to listen to my new speakers. They should be done before too long. See you soon
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Poor poor bird-brained POLLYinFLA. He doesn't even understand what he says. For Example when I said to POLLYinFLA "Well POLLYinFLA "if" you trust your senses (which I highly doubt) that would make you one of us lying Subjectivists wouldn't it?"POLLYinFLA responded in his perplexed parroting manner "It would? How so?" Let me explain old bird-brain. "IF" you trust your senses that makes you a subjectivist. Now according to your past comments subjectivists are people you lie to themselves! Thus "IF" you trust your senses you must be (by your definition that is) a lying Subjectivist. If that logic is too difficult to understand, try getting another bird in the cage to explain it to you.
SSSQQQQQQAAAAAACCKKKKK I'm POLLYinFLA I mod-e-fi a respected speaker design called Orion so my crappy pro-solidstate amp can sound tolerable.
SQQQQAAACCCK I think RCA LC9A's one of the most respected 2-way horn designs is mediocre.
SSSQAAAAACCKKKK only my mod-e-fied Orions are good sounding speakers.
SSSQQQQAAACCKKK only my QSC pro solid state amp sounds good.
SSSQQQAAAACCCK although I've never seen it or heard it I think the Audio Analoge Puccini looks pretty and @ $900 cost thetubeguy1954 way too much money! Plus I just know it has SS glare like my QSC crap does.
What an idiot POLLYinFLA is. He talks about components he's never heard as if he can possibly evaluate their performance without hearing them. The real laugh is, as many times as I've told POLLYinFLA the very thought of personally meeting him is abhorrent to me. The idiot still invites me and my wife to come hear his new speakers! That will be the day when the sun freezes over...
At least with Unsoundmind it was apparent he knew something about audio. POLLYinFLA thinks he knows, unfortunately his posts reveal his inability to to do anything but parrot putrid pointless paragraphs...
Thetubeguy1954
It was based on what he posted but it's directed at you as well.> The real laugh is, as many times as I've told POLLYinFLA the very thought of personally meeting him is abhorrent to me. The idiot still invites me and my wife to come hear his new speakers! That will be the day when the sun freezes over... <
I'd go if I lived closer, regardless of how I felt about his audio beliefs. Never know what the two of you might learn from one another, even if it's not about audio.
Yes, to be honest with you, I've never heard of this analog zucchini business. I'm sure it would sound quite pleasant. As a matter of fact, a have a pair of Tannoy ICT dipole computer speakers that it would probably power quite nicely. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye out on ebay if one comes available for a hundred bucks or so.cheers,
AJ
p.s. please be patient, the new rig isn't quite ready yet, give me a couple weeks. Thnx.
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
AJ and Tom,I sincerely hope that the two of you get together to listen to AJ's speakers. I hope Tom brings his amp and cables. I think that in general subs and obs have much to learn from one another and this is the perfect opportunity for the two of you to do so - and for the rest of us to learn as well, if you will both post your impressions of the meeting/listening session. Measurements certainly play a big role in how gear will sound. How big a role might be better determined by the two of you. My strong hunch is that, like with most things that aren't black and white, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'd do the same if I knew of any objectivists in my area. I believe I may try to find one or two.
Good luck, guys! I sincerely hope you get together and that once you do, that you get along together - and that you learn from one another. Let us know how it turns out. And hey, if you never come to terms with each others POV, perhaps you can share some new music with one another. Time well spent regardless.
I was once sure Tom and I could share some laughs
an enjoyment of music, while sipping on a few draughts.
But judging from his post above, he more liable to bring a knife
when I kindly invited him to bring along his wife.
Such is life.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
You have a chance to bridge the sub-ob gap here - to essentially hear the sound of one hand clapping. Draughts work better than knives.You may recall how much Soundmind irritated me on this board. It might surprise you to know that he and I have emailed privately and he's an extremely intelligent and friendly guy who has taught me a few things about stuff I thought I already knew. You might even make yourself a new friend. And as I mentioned, even if neither of you move one inch closer to each other on things audio, you might discover some new music together.
Kerr,If POLLYinFLA will be honest, he'll admit the first time I spoke with him on PHP I was courteous and even complimented his speakers. Saying something to the effect that I hadn't personally heard them, but I'd heard good things about them. These comments of mine were met with disparagement of my audio equipment and beratment of my opinions on audio. Even though more than once I've taken the time to explain:
1) I prefer tubed audio equipment, I do NOT hate solid state audio equipment! In fact I own a solid state integrated amp and a solid state HT reciever. I'd think that would show I don't hate solid state components, but POLLYinFLA cannot see that, so he just continues to mock the Mastersound. Which he does without having heard it or being able to provide specs that would support his Objectivist opinion of it.
2) I have conventional 2-way monitors, ribbon hybrid dipoles and controlled directivity horn speakers. According to POLLYinFLA these are all mediocre. Which once again, he says without having heard any of them or being able to provide specs that would support his Objectivist opinion as such.Add to that the fact that I had originally invited him to my house more than once to which he responded IIRC... with comments like A) I don't want to hear euphonic tube distortion or B) It would be a waste of my time. When I tried being civil with POLLYinFLA not once did he ever treat me with like behaviour. He prefered instead to just berate and disparage me and my components. I guess he wanted to be part of the "in" crowd with the Objectivists. So now just because he has new speakers he wants me to hear, I'm supposed to forget that visiting me at my house and hearing my components was beneath him and seen as a waste of his time?
There's a HUGE difference between POLLYinFLA and myself that most here seem to miss. I called the QSC amp a piece of crap AFTER having heard it, along with Crown and Crest Pro solid state amps being used in place of a solid state home audio amp. My Subjective opinion was; it and the Crown and the Crest played loud & clean, but they were also bright, harsh, with no depth to the soundstage, i.e. listening fatigue set in very quickly. The way I see it loud and clean along with durable and the ability to take abuse is the primary requirements for sound reinforcement. Unfortunately it's not the primary requirements for home listening. IMHO taking a pro solid state amp and inserting it into a home audio system, is like taking a dragster and exchanging it for a family vehicle, i.e. it's not being used for what it was designed and it's readily apparent to almost everyone.
On the other hand POLLYinFLA, who I'm willing to bet hasn't heard the Mastersound, the Aliantes, the Stibbert, the Audio Analoge Puccini, the RCA LC9A's or most likely anything I own, is quite willing to berate and disparage them sans any real knowledge about them or at the very least the specs which would support his low opinion of them as an Objectivist! That alone speaks volumes about his character and it's a character I have absolutely no desire to associate with. If I want to converse with an Objectivist, I'd prefer to do so with an intelligent Objectivist like my friend Roger Russell an ex-McIntosh engineer, not some bird brain like POLLYinFLA who spits apon an invitation to my home and speaks negatively about audio components he's never listened to.
Sorry Kerr, but POLLYinFLA has nothing I want to see or hear. I don't wish to meet him anymore, I don't want to drink with him, nor do I have any desire visit his home. As you know moving around is painful for me, so why put myself through the physical pain of driving to POLLYinFLA's home only to have to suffer further physical pain of listening to that QSC amp and then bear the pain of having to hear yet once again his uninformed opinions on audio components he's never heard personally? I honestly have much better things to do with my time....
Thetubeguy1954
> 2) I have conventional 2-way monitors, ribbon hybrid dipoles and controlled directivity horn speakers. According to POLLYinFLA these are all mediocre. <So you have differences of opinion. That much is obvious.
> I don't want to hear euphonic tube distortion or B) It would be a waste of my time. <
Some folks prefer discordant solid state distortion. Again, the two of you have differences of opinion. And as I recall, he was talking about DBT's when he said "waste of time". I could be wrong but I thought that was the thread where they wanted proof of what you could hear BEFORE they came down. I can't say why - that's an objectivist thing. I guess they don't believe you and feel that you'd fail a DBT when in their presence.
> My Subjective opinion was; it and the Crown and the Crest played loud & clean, but they were also bright, harsh, with no depth to the soundstage, i.e. listening fatigue set in very quickly. The way I see it loud and clean along with durable and the ability to take abuse is the primary requirements for sound reinforcement. Unfortunately it's not the primary requirements for home listening. <
I totally agree. But neither you nor I have any experience with the QSC amp AJ owns being used with his speakers. Who knows? It might work fine.
> POLLYinFLA who spits apon an invitation to my home and speaks negatively about audio components he's never listened to. <
But that's what objectivists do! Not the spitting but the lack of auditioning if the measurements don't warrant a listen. They believe that we are deluding ourselves, remember?
> Sorry Kerr, but POLLYinFLA has nothing I want to see or hear. I don't wish to meet him anymore, I don't want to drink with him, nor do I have any desire visit his home. <
Ok, that's cool. I have no problem with that. But doesn't that also mean that you no longer care about his opinions? See, I only brought this up because at least on this board you two seemed to have a lot to say to one another. I thought if you got together you could probably resolve some differences because you sure as hell ain't gonna accomplish that on an internet board. Correct?
Kerr,I'm only going to address one of your points, ok?
When I mentioned how POLLYinFLA spit apon an invitation to my home and how he speaks negatively about audio components he's never listened to. You replied: But that's what objectivists do!
However I disagree! That's NOT what Objectivists do. That's what unintelligent Objectivists with no character do here on PHP and I'm quite certain on other audio forums as well. Intelligent Objectivists with character like Tom Danley, Jneutron, Roger Russell etc. don't behave like this. Although POLLYinFLA and the other vocal Objectivists don't want to believe this, throught many of my years as an audiophile I was an Objectivist. I believed audio sales personal pretending to be Subjectivists just to sell wires and expensive audio components. So I have some experience with Objectivists and how they act. Oh yes for what it's worth I've never seen a Subjectivist turn Objectivist, but I've seen dozens of Objectivists turn Subjectivist, myself included!
Since I've become a Subjectivist the Objectivists I knew previously and those I later met personally never acted like POLLYinFLA does or Unsoundmind did. Sure without exception every Objectivists I've meet has prefered solid state components over tubed components, but I cannot recall any of them just spouting some brainless banter like ALL tubed audio equipment sucks. Usually I'll hear comments like tubes is ancient technology or with tubes you have to replace them every couple of years, etc. These Objectivists just prefered solid state over tubes, just like I prefer tubes over solid state and there's nothing wrong with either of those two POVs. Prefering one is NOT hating the other. In person they'd even sometimes admit to occasionally prefering the sound of midrange on tubed equipment (which meant they actually listened and heard differences) but without fail they'd quickly say that was a very occasional thing and then they'd praise solid state for it's deep, powerful bass, it's superior damping factor, greater amount of wattage and supposed greater reliability.
When it came to speakers it was a completely different story. Some people prefered one speaker type over another. But strangely enough speakers were seldom a topic of Objectivst vs Subjectivist arguments. Rather it was usually a preference of Ribbon vs Electrostatic or IB vs Reflex or Dipole vs Monopole or some combination of the above. Almost always the audiophiles of both camps agreed each speaker type had it's own unique set of postives and negatives and one would need to find the speaker that had the the pluses and minuses that fit his specific tastes and requirements! Almost sounds like they really do understand Subjectivism doesn't it? In addition more than one Objectivist readily admitted when it comes to specs and speakers it almost doesn't matter, because you'll never know till you get it home how it will interact with the room, thus that's when you'll know what it really "sounds" like!.
The Objectivists I've met have most certainly placed a lot more importance on specs than I did, but that said, I never found one who'd say an amp or preamp "sounds" better than another based strictly on reading the specs of a component. In fact except for Peter Aczel's joke of a magazine and his disciples here on PHP, I've NEVER, EVER met an Objectivist in person who told me he honestly believed all "well-made", "well-designed", or "properly-designed" audio components should or would "sound" the same.
==================================================================
They (Objectivists) believe that we are deluding ourselves, remember?That's true but it's they who are really deluded my friend. Thus because of POLLYinFLA's constant disparging and berating coupled with his unintelligent way of communicating that seems void of any character of merit, that I repeat... POLLYinFLA has nothing I want to see or hear. I don't wish to meet him anymore, I don't want to drink with him, nor do I have any desire visit his home. I will have call him to the carpert for his constant parroting of comments he cannot or will not back up with any proof!
> That's what unintelligent Objectivists with no character do here on PHP and I'm quite certain on other audio forums as well. <Rather than unintelligent, I prefer to use the term inexperienced. That inexperience is based, oddly enough, on intelligence... or at least "learned-ness". Most of the scientists of other disciplines that I've spoken to about audio in a general way have said "whatever the measurements say, goes". In other words, they don't try something that their schooling tells them is a waste of time. Except to "prove a point" for a test or article, find 2 objectivists who have experimented with wire. Or tube amps. See my point?
Now I will grant that some of the objectivists *seem* unintelligent and post unintelligently. But I think a lot of that is, as Richard Greene has suggested, in order to rattle the cages of subjectivists, i.e get a "rise" out of us.
The fact is, Tom, that none of us are 100% correct in our beliefs. We may think we are, but we aren't. I've proven objectivist beliefs incorrect with respect to cables and I've also been subject to perceptional delusions. I really don't like to call myself either sub or ob because I'm both. I've heard cable differences, find that tubes are more lifelike, but I won't even try clever clocks, magic pebbles or green pens. Give me a set of Maggie 20.1's, enough tubed power to run 'em, a killer turntable and CD player and some Nordost Valhalla (ha ha, yeah, right - like I can afford those!) and I'm set... along with room corrections, of course.
Don't get me started about Peter Aczel! What I see as his agenda makes him impossible to take seriously. But yes, he has his followers. The fact is that any topic that is in any way arguable will in fact be argued. Hang in there, Tom! ;)
Kerr,I have to say I am in total agreement with your post. I believe "the truth" whatever that may be, lies somewhere dead center of the objective and subjective POVs in audio. If I had to use a label to describe my audio beliefs I'd have to refer to myself as a subjective music lover. But I'm a subjectivist who honestly believes that there should be a logical, measureable reason for everything we hear. The main problem with most objectivists from my POV, is they believe the measurements used today in audio are complete and sufficient in and of themselves. I believe that POV is seriously flawed and if these objectivists would listen with an open mind they'd understand why today's measurements used in audio are NOT and cannot be complete and sufficient in and of themselves.
First and foremost, I'll readily admit that it's a fact people have believed an audio component has been changed when in fact nothing has changed. The objectivists use this example as proof that subjectivists are always fooling themselves into believing they hear differences when from the objectivist POV no differences can or do exist.
But to that objectivist arguement I'd like to reply:
1)I have NEVER mistaken live music for recorded or recorded for live. Nor have I ever met and serious audiophile or music lover who has mistaken live music for recorded or recorded for live. (PLEASE NOTE: I qualified this statement with the term "serious audiophile or music lover" I once heard someone say at a pool party "Damn that sounds like live music to a boom box" so for the sake of this arguement we are confining ourselves to serious audiophiles and music lovers) This proves to me the human ear/brain is very adept at recognizing the traits that makes live music, live music. It's also proves the human era/brain is very adept at recognizing when those traits are missing in recorded music, so that it's quickly able to recognize it is recorded music.
2) If the measurements used today in audio were complete and sufficient in and of themselves, then all science should have to do is take a measurement of the live performance and then one of the recorded music. Now wherever and however the recorded music measured differently from the live music, change it by whatever means is required to make it match the live music and it should the be indistinguishable from the live music, no? From the objectivist POV that should be all that's required, that is "if" the measurements used today in audio are complete and sufficient in and of themselves. I would think it's quite obvious that is NOT the solution. If it was some recording company would be doing it by now.
3) It's seems only logical that science either hasn't yet done sufficient testing on how and why the human ear/brain recognizes the traits and distinguishes what makes live music, live music as opposed to recorded music (IIRC Tom Danely admitted this was true once. I think his reply was that it just wasn't a matter anyone considered worth the time and expense it would require to resolve.) Or else the answer is that science has tried to resolve this issue but just doesn't know what or how to measure how and why the human ear/brain recognizes the traits that makes live music, live music as opposed to recorded music. Personally I believe the matter hasn't been investiagted throughly enough and most likely for the reasons Tom Danley stated. This is why I subjectively use my ear as the final arbitrator. I can only hope for the day when measurements can tell us how well an amp images, or how wide, deep or tall the soundstage will appear, etc. Because these measurements Signal to Noise (20 Hz - 20 kHz) -107 dB Input Sensitivity @ 8 ohms 1.25 Vrms, Gain @ 8 ohms 36 dB, Output Circuitry 2-Tier Class H, Distortion (SMPTE-IM) Less than 0.02%, Typical Distortion 1/8 rated power, 20 Hz-20 kHz & Full rated power, 20 Hz-20 kHz = Less than 0.02%, Frequency Response 20 Hz-20 kHz, -0.5 dB, Damping Factor Greater than 500, Input Impedance 20k ohms balanced - 10k ohms unbalanced, in no way tell me how well this amp images, how deep, wide or tall the soundstage is, how harmonically accurate it is etc.
I don't know what else I can say, because I don't believe 99% of the objectivists are really listening to opposing POVs. But maybe, just maybe this will make my POV a little clearer.
> First and foremost, I'll readily admit that it's a fact people have believed an audio component has been changed when in fact nothing has changed. The objectivists use this example as proof that subjectivists are always fooling themselves into believing they hear differences when from the objectivist POV no differences can or do exist. <That's one of the many problems with the DBT's that objectivists so staunchly tout. I would be willing to bet that I could perform a blind experiment using two items that have real, measurable differences and trick people into thinking they are the same or trick them into believing I switched them when I didn't. DBT's don't necessarily measure what they're supposed to but instead they measure people and behaviors. In that example, the people don't claim the audio equipment is different because they hear different, they're claiming a difference because that's what they were told, and the brain takes over. Bad example if it's being used to further the objectivist POV.
As for the rest of your post, it seems obvious to me that we're not measuring the right things or don't know all the measurements we should use. If we were, all cables would essentially sound alike (with the usual guage, length disclaimers intact, so don't fret, objectivists!) and they do not. The same with solid state amps. Many of them aren't discernible from each other to me but many of them are, even when they're measurements are essentially identical.
But maybe we're just seeing pie in the sky if we think subs and obs will ever agree! I'm told the great cable debate is now in its 4th decade. :)
"Although POLLYinFLA and the other vocal Objectivists don't want to believe this, throught many of my years as an audiophile I was an Objectivist."You thought you were an objectivist, but all you really had was a belief system based on some inaccurate facts that were consequently upended by your personal experience with certain components. A house of cards is doomed to collapse, some day.
"In fact except for Peter Aczel's joke of a magazine and his disciples here on PHP, I've NEVER, EVER met an Objectivist in person who told me he honestly believed all "well-made", "well-designed", or "properly-designed" audio components should or would "sound" the same."The last time I checked in here, you did not know what Aczel had to say on the subject and evidently you still do not know.
At any rate, I am continually amazed that you keep raising the topic, moreso considering your temperament.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Hobby,You are the pinnacle of arrogance. You honestly believe you can tell me whether or not I was an objectivist? Even after I tell you outright I was one? People like you with your arrogant I know you better than you do attitude are precisely why the two differing POV's will never, ever meet.
Next you want to tell me, as if you know, whether or not I know what Peter Aczel believes? I've read TAC where the audiofool says "We believe in measuring and we believe in listening but we don't believe in measuring with our ears." I've also read his comments of "As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped." and his POV as presented in his greatest blunder “The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio” I guess now you consider yourself to be The Great Audiohobby, the Audiophile Mindreader! I know what thetubeguy1954 knows and believes because I can read his mind and feel his feelings!
At any rate, I am continually amazed that you keep feeling the need to respond to my posted topics, moreso considering your mistaken beliefs about my temperament. You're just dead wrong on so many levels you're almost as funny as Peter Aczel! Thanks for giving me something to laugh about with my wife and the way home tonight. I don't need to read any comics for laughs, I can just read your replies to my posts and Peter Aczels Audio Comics! TAC = The Audio Comic...
"You are the pinnacle of arrogance."woah!
"Next you want to tell me, as if you know, whether or not I know what Peter Aczel believes? ....
.. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped "As it stands, your mastersound amplifier does not satisfy those criteria, as a result it will sound different. In otherwords your amplifier illustrates his point. So what point are trying make here?
"At any rate, I am continually amazed that you keep feeling the need to respond to my posted topics, moreso considering your mistaken beliefs about my temperament."
Indeed, I can see how mistaken I am about your temperament, you are the calmest fellow I have ever met ;o, Needless to say your post reinforces my original point, you were never an objectivist, just an audiophile with a belief system based on factual inaccuracies.
Hobby,I stated "You are the pinnacle of arrogance." to which you responded woah! Ok I'll stop for a moment, but don't understand why as you haven't addressed the point yet.
Next Hobby you copied my comment of: Next you want to tell me, as if you know, whether or not I know what Peter Aczel believes? ....
.. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped. and you responded with "As it stands, your mastersound amplifier does not satisfy those criteria, as a result it will sound different. In otherwords your amplifier illustrates his point. So what point are trying make here?"What kind of strawman arguement is this? I don't understand what you're getting at. I never claimed the Mastersound Reference 845 satisfied any of Aczel's criteria, did I? The point I made I know what Aczel says and believes, because I've read TAC and read many of his comments and opinions such as: 1) "We believe in measuring and we believe in listening but we don't believe in measuring with our ears." 2) "As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped." and 3) “The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio.” There's a big difference between knowing what someone said and believes and agreeing with what they said and believe or don't you understand the difference? It was YOU Hobby who said "The last time I (Hobby) checked in here, you (thetubeguy1954) did not know what Aczel had to say on the subject and evidently you still do not know." So I showed you I do know what the idiot Aczel says and believes. Now why you want to create a stawman by somehow attributed that comment to concern the Mastersound, is beyond my understanding.
===============================================================
Next I, thetubeguy1954 said: At any rate, I am continually amazed that you keep feeling the need to respond to my posted topics, moreso considering your mistaken beliefs about my temperament.To which you the Audiodummy replied: "Indeed, I can see how mistaken I am about your temperament, you are the calmest fellow I have ever met." Well Audiodummy if you think I am going to sit by an idly watch you tell your mistaken beliefs about me without responding, then you have another thing coming. But responding and being uncalm are two different things. You're so mistaken about my temperment. In fact, I was laughing so hard when I read this post of yours my customer service rep told me to quiet down because she couldn't hear on the phone! Behold I guess now you consider yourself to be The Great Audiodummy, the Audiophile Mindreader! He claims he knows what thetubeguy1954 knows and believes because he can read my mind and feel my feelings! But Audiodummy is more mistaken than Aczel is!
==============================================================
Now Audiodummy says: Needless to say your post reinforces my original point, you were never an objectivist, just an audiophile with a belief system based on factual inaccuracies.Ok Audiodummy everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how mistaken it is. Believe whatever you what to. It doesn't effect me in anyway except to provide me with lots o' laughs. I'm not sure what fits you best Audiodummy or Audioclown. Either one will work for a person like yourself who wants to tell another person what they believe and feel, as if you know better than I do about what I truly believe and feel. Talk about belief system based on factual inaccuracies...
Thetubeguy1954
PS: Just keep posting because I love the laughs they provide!
I used the comment button on this post cos this are out of order, in practically every instance where individuals have disagreed with you have resorted to namecalling.Aside from namecalling, but else did you succeed in saying, what have you put on the table to back up your comments with respect to Peter Aczel comments on amplifiers and measurements? Do you suppose that namecalling takes the place of rational discussion?
You need help...psychiatric help.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Ok Hobby,Now you want to try and change the direction of this arguement? So be it! Although you didn't call me names, you began the negativity by first calling my intelligence into question, when acting as if you were some sort of psychic. You proclaimed I didn't know it but I only thought I was an objectivist, but in reality I wasn't! Your exact words were: "You thought you were an objectivist, but all you really had was a belief system based on some inaccurate facts that were consequently upended by your personal experience with certain components. A house of cards is doomed to collapse, some day."
You further berated my intelligence by stating "The last time I checked in here, you did not know what Aczel had to say on the subject and evidently you still do not know."
Next you attacked my character by giving your distorted views on my temperment, which you stated as: "At any rate, I am continually amazed that you keep raising the topic, moreso considering your temperament."
These were all taken from here: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29053.html
And all those comments of yours were directed at me BEFORE I even spoke with you on this topic. When I responded and called you arrogant & psychic (for assuming you knew me better than I know myself.) You even continued on with your arrogance and attacks of my character with comments like:
1) Indeed, I can see how mistaken I am about your temperament, you are the calmest fellow I have ever met. (As if you can read my actual temperment through these posts)
2) Needless to say your post reinforces my original point, you were never an objectivist, just an audiophile with a belief system based on factual inaccuracies. (As if you really know if I was or wasn't an objectivist at one point in time or not. Funny part is bjh doesn't think I'm a subjectivist either! I guess you 2 know better than I do, so I must be a new catagory of audiophile huh?)
Then you start a strawman by saying "As it stands, your mastersound amplifier does not satisfy those criteria, as a result it will sound different. In otherwords your amplifier illustrates his point." As if I ever stated the Mastersound Reference 845 fit Aczel's criteria.
These were taken from this post: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29059.html
At this point YES! I called you Audiodummy because IMHO only a dummy would start just running off at the mouth claiming he knows me better than I know myself! You claim I never was an objectivist soley because that's your belief! Ok Audiodummy Prove I wasn't an objectivist, show me how I didn't fit the criteria of being an objectivist. You're certainly welcome to your opinions but don't state them as if they are facts. I also called you Audiodummy because you believe you know my temperment based on posts of mine that are often written to get a rise out of the lunatic-fringe objectivists here. I also called you Audiodummy because your started you little starwman arguement in an attempt to save face when you claimed I didn't know what that idiot Aczel believes and I showed you I did! How did you respond? By stating "As it stands, your mastersound amplifier does not satisfy those criteria, as a result it will sound different. In otherwords your amplifier illustrates his point." As if I ever said it did fit Aczel's criteria.
Now after being an arrogant fool who believes he knows me better than I know myself and who started a strawman when I proved I knew what Aczel said and believes. Now you say, Aside from namecalling, but else did I succeed in saying, what have you put on the table to back up your comments with respect to Peter Aczel comments on amplifiers and measurements?
Well Audiodummy #1 I proved you were wrong in your first response to this when you claimed in error ""The last time I checked in here, you did not know what Aczel had to say on the subject and evidently you still do not know." Because I do know exactly what that idiot believes.
No I do NOT suppose that namecalling takes the place of rational discussion. However when I stuck talking with some idiot who makes incorrect claims, disparages my intelligence, berates my character and starts strawman arguements when proved incorrect, it's rather difficult to have an intelligent, let alone rational discussion. Unfortunately idiots like yourself make that impossible. You want to be allowed to disparage my intelligence and berate my character and then you continue with your pompus arrogance and suggest I psychiatric help? You need to walk up and face reality, you pompus arrogant Audio@#*!
I have to admit at first you caused me to laugh, but now seeing how serious you take all this makes me sad. You remind me of a verse from the song Pigs (Three Different Ones) on the CD Animals by Pink Floyd...
You're nearly a good laugh
Almost worth a quick grinYou're nearly a laugh
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.
Thetubeguy1954
" Although you didn't call me names, you began the negativity by first calling my intelligence into question, when acting as if you were some sort of psychic"Pathetic excuses for horribly woeful behaviour. Read your final post from the previous thread on the Peter Azcel issue, as far as I can see you have yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the principle, quoting him verbatim is not a demonstration of knowledge.
As I mentioned earlier you need psychiatric help...
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=28551&highlight=theaudiohobby&session= (Open in New Window)
Audiodummy,If you honestly believe that your reprehensible behaviour of questioning my intelligence, disparging my character and then stating you believe over & over I need psychiatric help doesn't somehow merit your inherting the title Audiodummy, then you're more of pompus ass than I thought you were. You sir, are the one in dire need of psychiatric help! You want to be treated with respect? Then behave in a manner worthy of such treatment. You are just another of the many objectivists here of questionable character. The only thing you and the others of this lunatic-fringe are capable of are smear tactics. Perhaps you should read posts from Tom Danley so you can learn how an objectivist of character posts.
I fully understand what the idiot Aczel says and believes no matter how much you protest differently. As I said prove I don't or shut up...
Thetubeguy1954
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=28551&highlight=theaudiohobby&session= (Open in New Window)
What a crazy title...Did you miss the fact that I posted that link in my previous post as evidence of your lack of understanding of the subject. Ironically, in that post you accept that you may not have understood Aczel's comments! You said that you disagree with Aczel's opinion on amplifiers, but then proceeded to discuss issues that are either tangential or have no relevance to the subject, demonstrating your LACK of understanding.
Now you are suddenly very upset I stated the obvious. And I was right about that your very foul temperament, Your last four or more posts in response to my original comments provide ample evidence. But better than that, you turn around and say to me "You're 100% Correct Hobby Your Excuses Are Pathetic"
LOL! see a psychiatrist, you need one urgently.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Audiodummy,So you're such a pompus ass that you believe you can use a title called "Pathetic Excuses" and that's a good title, but when I use a title called " You're 100% Correct Hobby Your Excuses Are Pathetic" that's a carzy title? You are definitely twisted. Like I said, you're nearly a laugh, but you're really a cry.
No I did not where posted that link in your previous post. Unlike you I disagree it provides and evidence of a lack of understanding of the subject. Perhaps you, like Pat D read a lot more into what I say than is actually there. But that doesn't surprise me from the lunatic-fringe objectivist crowd.
You mistakenly believe in that post I accept that you may not have understood Aczel's comments! How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. I did said that I disagree with Aczel's opinion on amplifiers. And then I proceeded to discuss issues. Just because they didn't pertain to something I said previously in the same post in no way demonstrates a LACK of understanding, as you so pompously suggest.
You sir have once again demonstrated that Audiodummy is a better moniker for you than Audiohobby. You in that warped twisted mind of yours want so desperately to believe I'm "suddenly very upset" what a joke! What you believe is stating the obvious, is just more of your idiotic opinions of me. They're laughable at best. In fact it infuriates you that you cannot make me upset, but rather I laugh at your pathetic posts.
You somehow in Audiodummy fashion believe you've enabled my very foul temperament, as you call it. The truth is you provide me with Lot's-o'-Laughs at this idiotic beliefs of yours. Run off and cry to the moderators again that thetubeguy1954 called you names, after you Audiodummy dispared my intelligence, berated my character and continually tell me I need psychiatric help! Get real you pompous ass!
My last four or more posts in response to my original comments provide ample evidence that you can dish it out, but running crying like a baby to mommy when it gets turned back on you.
I take back my original title to the post in question. It should have been: "I'm 100% Correct Hobby Your Posts Prove You Are Pathetic" ROTFLMAOPMP, yes you should definitely see a psychiatrist, you need one a lot more urgently than I do, because I'm still laughing at you!
"You mistakenly believe in that post I accept that you may not have understood Aczel's comments! How you came to that conclusion is beyond me. I did said that I disagree with Aczel's opinion on amplifiers. And then I proceeded to discuss issues. Just because they didn't pertain to something I said previously in the same post in no way demonstrates a LACK of understanding, as you so pompously suggest."Sigh....you do not know that you do not know or you know that you do not know and are embarrassed by it. It is those that lack knowledge or are insecure that carry on a discussion like you do. So far you have yet to tell us why you disagree with Aczel's comments or why you think that his comments on amplifiers' sound are wrong. I a'int holding my breath tho' cos I can see that your original position from way back then was based on a fallacy, keep on cussing, maybe it will make you feel better. But as for me I am satisfied that you are a foul-tempered and foul-mouthed ignoramus.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Audiohobby,You said: Sigh....I, (TG1954) do not know that I do not know or I know that I do not know and I am embarrassed by it. It is those that lack knowledge or are insecure that carry on a discussion like I do.
Hobby, I honestly don't understand how or why you'd expect me to address you civilly when you start your posts by berating me like this. I'm going to use the same basic analogy I used with POLLYinFLA. If a person keeps poking a dog with a stick and then the dog turns & bites him, does that mean the dog is vicious? I'd say no, but rather the dog was simply responding to being provoked. It's the same way when you poke me with questioning my intelligence and poke me with questioning my character and then poke me once again with the suggestion I need to see a psychiatrist. But when you get bit with name-calling you want to proclaim it is I who has a bad
temperment. Truly Hobby these words & actions of yours are those of either a pompus or unintelligent person.In fact when I first began to read this post and your comment of "But as for me I am satisfied that you are a foul-tempered and foul-mouthed ignoramus." I was inclined to respond to you once again in a similair manner. However I changed my mind and decided apon a different course that will hopefully foster an intelligent exchange of beliefs. I have decided to be the bigger man and just ignore your insults this time & answer your question in the hopes that you really want to know the answer to your question & not simply waste my time exchanging insults! Only time will tell if that was a wise choice on my behalf, or not.
====================================================================
Hobby you asked me to tell us why I disagree with Aczel comments or think that his comments on amplifiers' sound is wrong. Let's begin by examining Aczel own words, "As I have pointed out innumerable times, a properly designed amplifier has no sound of its own. It is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped."I'm going to address Aczel's statement one part at at time, ok? Let's start with Aczel's use of the term "Properly Designed" shall we? First who the heck is Aczel to decide what does & doesn't defines being a "Properly Designed" amplifier? Search though I may I cannot find a definition anywhere of what constitutes a "Properly Designed" audio amplifier. Nor can I find any peer reviewed, published studies that support the term "Properly Designed" amplifier as Aczel chooses to use it. It would appear that Aczel wants people to simply accept as fact, his subjective opinion that a "Properly Designed" amplifier is one that sounds the same as all other "Properly Designed" amps. This is revealed in his statement: "if" the amplifier is "Properly Designed" it is impossible for two amplifiers to sound different! I would have to take acception to that statement as tt's my contention that the Mastersound Reference 845 is a "Properly Designed" amp that uses SET topology.
Ok I can hear your protest already that Aczel had other prerequisites when testing "Properly Designed" amplifiers. Thus we see that according to Aczel a "Properly Designed" amp is one that has a) high input impedance, b) low output impedance, c) flat frequency response, d) low distortion and e) low noise floor. Then when testing these "Properly Designed" amps if the levels are matched and neither amp is clipped that's when it is impossible for these two "Properly Designed" to sound different. However even stated as such I still have a problem with Aczel's subjective opinion of "Properly Designed" amps, because IMHO there's still too many variables. I'll grant that it's fairly easy to match the levels and monitor if the amps are clipping or not. However lets look at these other numbers more closely. Hobby I'd like you to answer some questions for me, ok? After you do that I'll expound apon my points.
1) What exactly is the point when the impedance represents high input impedance?
2) What exactly is the point when the impedance represents low output impedance?
3) What exactly is the max deviations both + & - dB from ruler flat that is still considered flat response?
4) What figure is low enough to be considered low distortion?
5) What figure is sufficiently low to represent low floor noise?Hobby I have a BIG problem with Aczel's concept of what constitutes a "Properly Designed" amp and people's willingness to simply accept Aczel's subjective opinion as if it is fact! This can only lead us all down a path of audio mediocrity. For Example: What if someone has been testing amps for years using Aczel's method. In the end he'd probably end up with all his amps sounding the same, because as Aczel states if they are all "Properly Designed" and it's impossible for two amplifiers to sound different at matched levels if each has high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise floor, and is not clipped. However what happens if some years later a new manufacturer comes along. Our local amp tester decides to compare this new amp to one of the many of the "Properly Designed" ones that sounded the same. So here's our local amp tester with two different amplifiers to compare. As he always does 1) he made sure the levels are matched, 2) he checked and each has high input impedance, 3) both had low output impedance, 4)the frequency response if flat on both when tested, 5) both amps exhibit low distortion, 6) they both have low noise floor, and 7) neither amp is clipped while being tested. However something strange happens during the testing. Our local amp tester hears a distinct difference when using the new manufacurer's amp! Even after going back and rechecking everything & verfiying all of Aczel's prerequisites are being met, there's a difference in how this amp sounds. Not only is there a difference but the difference is one everyone readily admits is a marked improvement in sound quality. Under these circumstances Aczel proposes the only conclusion that can be reached is the new amplifier is not a "Properly Designed" amplifier. After all everyone knows "if" the amplifier was "Properly Designed" it would be impossible for two amplifiers to sound different! So even though the new amp sounds better to everyone it's considered an "Improperly Designed" amplifier. Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this scenerio. I'll admit it's pure conjecture on my part, but the truth is so is Aczel's notion that all "Properly Designed" amps sound the same.
The notion of a "Properly Designed" amp is an attempt by Aczel to enable objectivists to appear to be armed with scientific proof when they espouse a "golden-ear's" hearing acuity is delusional or when citing a subjectivist's amp only "sounds" different because it's an "improper design". What's really sad is how many objectivists have swallowed this subjective opinion of Aczel's hook, line & sinker. While knowing full well there's no peer reviewed, published studies that support the usage of term "Properly Designed" amplifier Aczel intends to use it! To use such vague, unqualified & unverified terms such as "Properly Designed" "Well Made" or even "Well Designed" as many objectivists do here on PHP, or to cite "properly-designed" as a basis for defining an amplifiers performance, is yet just one more form of objectivist voodooscience which is not unsimiliar to the objectivist practice of proclaiming all the virtues of ABX/DBT's while not once providing any detailed, documented proof that these beliefs are truly scientifically supported. Although they'll make claims of the proof DBTs have provided over the years, not once has any proponent of them provided peer reviewed published studies that prove their assertions are correct. Unfortunately it appears they never can provide the proof they claim exists. So as I see it this very much akin to what Aczel is now doing. To both of these ideas "Properly Designed" amps & ABX/DBTs I state that without proof these claims which were made in the name of science are revealed as being bogus, voodooscience or psuedoscience. In the end these people are only making Subjective opinions using scientific terms to fool the unknowing amongst us into believing they are actually being scientific. When they might as well be reading tea leaves in the bottom of a tea cup.
Thetubeguy1954
Be very careful how you prod restrained pitbull Tom. He's liable to break loose and then....cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
He already broken loose, should we send for the dog handlers to put him back on a leash? 8)
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You can try....But that's exactly what I'd expect from someone with the lack of character you and POLLYinFLA exhibit. Get someone else to go and do your dirty work for ya...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: