|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.153.250.36
In Reply to: Re: The Reality Of It All posted by thetubeguy1954 on February 26, 2007 at 09:35:40:
" 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)
Follow Ups:
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
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: