|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.46.7.90
I have been thinking about Peter Aczel's attack on subjectivists & subjective listening with his article, THE 10 BIGGEST LIES IN AUDIO. I've decided to do the same thing from the subjectivists POV. My series of posts hopefully won't be in 10 parts but I'm going to bring to light some of the BIGGEST LIES objectivists say about subjectivists.I have to admit I’m really at a loss with the objectivist's reasoning behind these lies. After all it's these same objectivists who claim to have scientific proof that their POV is the correct one. Thus try as I may I cannot understand why these same objectivists are so insecure in their POV that they are constantly lying by attributing traits to subjectivists that they know are just plain untrue. So with that opening statement let's begin with objectivist's lie #1
SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS
At first glance this would appear to be such a ludicrous statement by one of the lunatic-fringe objectivists, that one would expect the other more rational objectivists to speak up and declare they know this couldn't be & isn't possibly a true representation of what subjectivists believe. Unfortunately that hasn't happened. Instead we have a few of the very vocal amongst the lunatic-fringe objectivists pronounce that this is the belief of the typical subjectivist! Even when those who make this claim are asked to show where a subjectivist has said ALL measurements are useless, they just ignore that request and continue on professing this deliberate falsehood as if it were the truth!
For an example that confirms this belief by objectivists we have POLLYinFLA commenting the subjectivist position on measurements is “…you (TG1954)consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.”
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29643.htmlNow everyone here knows POLLYinFLA doesn't usually post intelligent, rational posts, but rather prefers to create posts that ridicule or provoke those who disagree with is audio POV. So to further prove this is not an isolated opinion by a sole lunatic-fringe objectivist. I took this response from the Audiohobby. I admit Hobby & I seldom agree, but his posts are rational & intelligent most of the time. Audiohobby responded to this post by POLLYinFLA with this comment “Yep, you captured the foolishness that pervades thinking of many on this board.” http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29649.html
IMHO the only "foolishness" I see is these two objectivists supporting one anothers deliberate spreading of a known falsehood. It appears that when a subjectivist uses their ears as the final aribitrator, the objectivists twist that practice into meaning all or most subjectivists believe all measurements are useless. That is a bold face lie. Every subjectivist knows that some measurements are useful. An SPL meter for example can be quite useful in determining "sound" levels. In fact I know more than one DIY subjectivists that owns a $50 Rat Shack version as seen here:
http://www.radioshack.com/sm-digital-display-sound-level-meter--pi-2103667.html
So I'm sorry but any objectivist who espouses the lie that all subjectivists believe all measurements are useless, either doesn't know what subjectivists truly believe or you do know and just lie to discredit subjectivists by any means you can.For those objectivists who really want to know the truth about what most subjectivists believe about measurements, it's simply this. There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear. Subjectivists realize just as any "serious" music lover/audiophile should, the human ear/brain combo is extremely adept at recognizing the traits that makes live music, live music! They also know the human ear/brain combo is equally adept at recognizing recorded because the traits that makes live music, live music are missing in the recording. This ability for the human ear/brain combo to instantly recognize the traits of live music is the reason why "serious" music lovers/audiophiles never mistake live music for recorded music or recorded music for live music.
Apparently at this present time scientists & audio manufacturers either don't know what to measure or they don't know how to measure for these traits in live music. If they did they'd only need to measure for which of those traits are missing in recorded music & replace or replicate them as required. Personally I agree with something Tom Danley told me previously which I'm now paraphrasing:
It's just not cost effective to do the research required to discover how & why the human ear/brain combo instantly recognizes live unamplified music as such. (Tom please correct any errors I made in what you said.) Once science & audio manufacturers finally do that research & discover how & what to measure concerning how & why the human ear/brain combo instantly recognizes live unamplified music as such. These will be the measurements that correlate to what we hear in amps, cables, etc and subjectivists and hopefully objectivists will embrace them.In the meantime here's the specs of a solidstate amp:
Frequency Response: at 1 watt, 20Hz - 20 kHz ± 0.1 dB
Phase Response: at 1 watt, 10Hz - 20 kHz ±10°
Signal to Noise Ratio below full bandwidth power
20 Hz to 20 kHz
A-weighted
> 100 dB
> 105 dB
Total Harmonic Distortion: (THD) at rated power, true THD < 0.05%
Intermodulation Distortion: (IMD)60 Hz and 7 kHz at 4:1,from rated power to 35 dB below rated power at 8 ohms < 0.05%
Damping Factor: 10 Hz to 400 Hz > 1000
Controlled Slew Rate: > 30 volts/μs
Input Impedance:
nominally balanced 10k ohms
nominally unbalanced 20 k ohms
Output Impedance: 6 milli ohms @ 20Hz rising to 130 milli ohms @ 20Khz
Load Impedance: (Note: Safe with all types of loads)
Stereo 2-8 ohms
Bridge Mono 4-16 ohms
Parallel Mono 1-4 ohms
Voltage Gain: (8-ohm load rated output at 1 kHz, maximum level setting)
0.775V sensitivity
1.4V sensitivity
26 dB sensitivity
132:1 ±6% or 42 dB ±0.5 dB
71:1 ±6% or 37 dB ±0.5 dB
20:1 ±6% or 26 dB ±0.5 dBWill one of the objectivists tell me:
a) Which of those measurements defines how high a soundstage will be?
b) Which of those measurements defines how wide a soundstage will be?
c) Which of those measurements defines how deep a soundstage will be?
d) Which of those measurements defines how much "air" will be heard around the performers & instruments?
e) Which of those measurements defines what this component's resolution capabilities are?
f) What of those measurements defines this component's imaging capabilities?
g) What of those measurements defines how well this component replicates live unamplified music?These and other traits are important to me as well as other audiophiles/music lovers. So if you honestly believe that these measurements are of use in determining how well this amp replicates music. Please tell us which measurements correlate to the questions I've asked? Also how are they interpreted for these specific questions listed above? For example of what I mean by interpreting the measurements if you were to say resolution capability is correlated to Slew Rate. Would it get greater as the volts/μs increased or decreased?
Thetubeguy1954
Follow Ups:
I think I see where you're coming from**.Bu the example you give at the end doesn't correlate. A-C talk more about spkeaers & positioning. D also relates to spkr- amp interfacing and the aforementioned. Literally taken, E -- OK. Then, F also relates to spkrs & positioning and amp interface. So, OK, your amps' quoted specs may tell you s/thing about how they'll operate in conjunction with a spkr.
I don't get G at all: to do this, you have to choose your piece of recorded music and then tweak the whole system and make it sound like "live unamplified music". OK, the result may be repeatable with other LPs /cd/ whatevers -- but not necessarily.
**You can sum up much of it, more or less, by "if it sounds good and measures well, it's good. If it sounds good and measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing"
If Soundmind were still around, he'd be the "Arny Krueger".....
I have to admit I didn’t read your entire post so maybe I missed something. But I glanced through it and saw your listed specs and your questions. You seem to have made the oppositions point for them IMHO.You asked about slew rate. About the easiest answer I can give is that it is the speed of the amp. It is a measure of its transient response. Think of it as "maximum rate of change of an amplifier's output voltage with respect to its input voltage".
A long book could be written about this subject and how transistor amps stack up against tube amps. But I will throw a drop of blood in these shark-infested waters and quickly depart. The following is a cut and paste from Wikipedia (so bite them not me).
"Because tubes are significantly more linear than transistors, tube amplifiers do not need as much global negative feedback to achieve acceptable linearity. While large amounts of global negative feedback are effective for reducing total harmonic distortion (THD) at low frequencies, feedback has downsides such as reduced stability, reduced slew rate, reduced bandwidth, increased high-order distortion [citation needed], and artifacts such as asymmetrical slewing [citation needed]. In most commercial designs, little attention is paid to these problems, and designers simply attempt to achieve the lowest possible THD."
Hi Russ57,I think you're missing the point of my post, i.e. objectivists untruthfully state: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS!
The keyword here is ALL. As I stated in the original post EVERY subjectivist knows that SOME measurements are useful. For example an SPL meter for example can be quite useful in determining "sound" levels.What subjectivists believe is that todays accepted audio measurements don't correlate with what we hear. Unfortunately some of the lunatic-fringe objectivists here twist that believe into a weapon to use against subjectivists by declaring that means I or other subjectivists believe ALL measurements are useless and that's where the problem arises from.
Look at it this way. If I was about to take a long trip and had no money to buy more gas, knowing how much gas I had in the tank could tell me if I could make the trip or not! Measuring the oil wouldn't correlate with how many miles I could travel per gallon of gas in the tank would it? So if I said measuring the oil is useless in determining how many miles I can travel. Does that mean I believe ALL measurements are useless? Of course it doesn't. Measuring the oil will tell me if the engine is sufficiently lubricated, but it won't tell me squat about if I have enough gas to travel the distance required. It's the same thing with audio. Today's measurements don't tell me anything about how well an amp replicates live unamplified music, nor does it tell me how well the amp throws a soundstage. These measurements are good for other things, but not at revealing audio traits that are important to me. So just because I believe that doesn't mean I believe ALL measurements are useless!
dfd
And then we'd take offense. But some are more sophisticated than TG54.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
c
.
s
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=24689&highlight=thetubeguy1954&r=&session=
Posted by thetubeguy1954 ( A ) on October 23, 2006 at 13:45:06This Subjectivist vs Objectivist battle is over for me. But before I begin I want to state that I have great respect for other Objectivists here like tomservo or jneutron to name a couple.
I've come to the conclusion that as much as the proclaim differently, the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists who are constantly demanding Subjectivists provide them with proof they can hear differences in components, wires, tubes etc, DO NOT want to really know the truth on this matter. I don't know if that's because their preferences & expectation biases prevent them from hearing these differences. Perhaps their ears aren't trained well enough--you see despite what the LFO claim, Subjectivists do NOT believe we have super-hearing abilities. We believe everyone with training and no hearing disabilities can hear what we hear. It's even possible their components aren't revealing enough, but truth be told I don't know why they cannot hear these differences.What I do know is that instead of knowing the truth, these small in number Lunatic Fringe Objectivists (RBG, Pat D, AJinFLA, Phil Tower, Soundmind & andy_19191 to name a few) would rather appear correct at all costs, even if they're not, period. For the record I'd like to say I know this group of Lunatic Fringe Objectivists don't represent all or even the majority of the Objectivists here on A.A. The reasons I've come to they don't want to know the truth are many. Over & over & over again we hear this group making many misleading statements such as:
1) Subjectivists believe EVERY component or wire sounds different. The truth is Subjectivists believe components and wires do indeed sound different and the only way of knowing if 2 components or wires will sound different is to listen. But I have never met a Subjectvist that said EVERY component or wire sounds different.
2) Subjectivists believe that wires make as much difference as speakers. But rather than make a valid comparison that represents what Subjectivists really believe, the LFO will compare a Quad with an AR9 as an example of how great the differences in speakers are. However the reality is an ESL and a Dynamic speaker are completely different technologies. There's not a Subjectivist that doesn't understand you'd probably notice the change in the sound of the different technologies a lot quicker than with wires. But all interconnects are basically the same technology, no? So comparing wires is more like making a comparison between 10 $5K dynamic speakers. Even the Objectivist know the differences between 10 different $5K dynamic speakers isn't night & day. What Subjectivists really believe is the changes in wires could be as dramatic, or more dramatic than, the change in 10 different $5K dynamic speakers! Now it's in that light we see that wires can make as much or more difference than your speakers.
I could go on with other misleading examples but I'll end with this one. The Lunatic Fringe Objectivists want you to believe that Subjectivists run and hide from blind tests, but WE DO NOT! Case in point, I offered to PROVIDE PROOF via "blind tests" by blind test I mean that the wires and the person changing the wires would remain unseen by myself and the witnesses for the duration of the test. I maintain "IF" I cannot see the wires, I cannot know which, if any, wires were changed. If the witnesses and myself cannot see the person changing the wires, they cannot somehow telegraph info in any way, shape or form! That would thus be a valid "blind test."
Did the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists jump on the chance to see a Subjectivist take the test they claim we all run and hide from? NO they did not! Instead of running to see this test they all ran from it. Below are some of their many excuses the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists have to this challenge I offered & my accusations of the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists hiding...
andy_19191 claims: They did not hide. They told you they were not interested in wasting their time and money which is quite different. If you want someone to visit you then you will have to provide a good enough reason to overcome this cost.
(Ok so here's one of the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists stating that coming and witnessing a Subjectivist passing a blind-test is a waste of their time and money! Yet the claim they want to know the truth.)
andy_19191 also claims: Most children realise at quite an early age that simply wanting something and sitting down and screaming until they get it does not always work.
(So why are these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists (of which andy_19191 is a member) CONSTANTLY sitting down, screaming out that Subjectivists need to PROVIDE PROOF, yet when a challenge is extended wherein a Subjectivists offers to take a blind test the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists call witnessing this test a waste of time and money?)
andy_19191 claims: What can you offer "Lunatic Fringe Objectivists" to tempt them to come and visit you? Valid data of something interesting to them?. No you do not have scientifically valid data or a desire to obtain it.
(I've offered: 1) previous witnesses whom they reject, 2) to PROVIDE PROOF to them personally, but they consider that a waste of time and money. Yet now andy_19191 states I need to "tempt" them with valid data I already have? So unless I go back and get a high-level science education to enable me to be able to provide them with audibility data you know - the kind these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists can READ rather than experience, there's nothing I can do, to please these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists! Every Subjectivist here knows that any data presented that didn't line-up with the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists preferences and expectation biases would be rejected outright. That's why I specifically offered to provide proof personally to them, but remember that unfortunately is a waste of time and money according to andy_19191!)
Richard BassNut Greene in an amazingly wise post claims: "No matter how foolish the claims seem at first, they need to be tested before they are dismissed."
(Yet after posting those very words RBG dismisses 1) everything I say, 2) the witnesses I provide and 3) the offer to provide the proof personally the scientific data he states he's never seen. How does RBG respond? He refuses to come and claims my offers of hospitality are actually DEMANDS being made apon him. How can it be a DEMAND, when a) I offer and b) He states it's proof he wants?)
Richard BassNut Greene claims: All experiment data must be published, including the temperature and humidity in the listening room measured at five-minute intervals, and experiment results must also please Phil Tower.
(I hope he's joking a tad. But now I must be published & Plus Phil Tower must approve (isn't that an appeal to authority?) What happened to RBG's words of: No matter how foolish the claims seem at first, they need to be tested before they are dismissed?)
Richard BassNut Greene claims: "Another great benefit to audio is to claim that all components sound different when not one out of hundreds of brave audiophiles who have tested this belief over three decades was able to come close to validating the belief."
(Actually RBG the real great benefit to audio is for you Lunatic Fringe Objectivists to claim that components don't sound different, and then dismiss an offer from a Subjectivist to PROVIDE YOU PERSONALLY the PROOF you claim you want, only to have you refuse to come to the test, because you interpet the offer of hospitality as a DEMAND!)
Richard BassNut Greene claims: Let the audio fantasies continue -- attack all objective experiements when their results don't support pre-existing beliefs. It's all about the ego-building fantasy: "I know what I hear and I don't have to prove it to anyone else."
(RBG how you mislead everyone. The ONLY one with an ego-building fantasies are those you of Lunatic Fringe Objectivists like yourself who state: No matter how foolish the claims seem at first, they need to be tested before they are dismissed. Yet you outright reject my personal tests, the witnesses of these tests and the offer to see these tests performed for you in person! It would appear it's you Lunatic Fringe Objectivists who attack all experiements when their results don't support your pre-existing beliefs, not us Subjectivists.)
Richard BassNut Greene claims: My posts claim that blind test results can not identify the existence of even one real golden ear. I do not claim all components sound the same. It is the golden ear wackos who claim all components sound different ... but have no proof beyond "I know what I hear".
(RBG you claim, 1) No matter how foolish the claims seem at first, they need to be tested before they are dismissed & 2) blind test results can not identify the existence of even one real golden ear. Yet you REFUSE to accept my challenge that I will detect via blind tests, that wires sound different. It's real easy for you to make these "supposed" facts when 1) You won't test my hearing abilities BEFORE rejecting them and 2) I offer to allow blind tests to identify & provide the existance of someone (me) who can detect differences in wires. You make so many different claims yet don't even follow your own words, i.e. NO MATTER HOW FOOLISH THE CLAIMS SEEM AT FIRST, THEY NEEDTO BE TESTED BEFORE BEING DISMISSED. Instead in my case you jump straight to dismissing, my tests, my claimed results, my witnesses of these tests and finally my offer to allow you to personally witness me taking said tests.
AJinFLA states in response to my offer of proving I detect differences in wires etc: "So no, I won't be coming to your house of worship anytime soon. Sorry, I'm agnostic remember? Thanks for the offer though. I don't get to hear tube distortion and low rez uncontrolled directivity speaker box sound very often anymore. Artifical flavoring ain't for me. Just not my bag."
(Apparently in this particular Lunatic Fringe Objectivist's mind he has to like the sound of the system, in order for a valid blind test to be performed!)
AJinFLA claims: You don't own an ABX or a clue about science or scientific proof, nor will you ever. There is simply no need to go further.
(So AJinFLA ONLY accept results via an ABX. He will NOT accept the valid data obtained via other blind testing?)
AJinFlA stated in response to my offer of proving I detect differences in wires etc: "...why (do) I need to be there to watch you imagine hearing differences, which I was going to suggest - could easily have been done with a web camera - and save me the drive."
(So this particular Lunatic Fringe Objectivists won't accept my tests, my claimed results, my witnesses of these tests or even my offer to allow him to personally witness me taking said tests ( AJinFLA lives pretty close to me) Yet he'll accept the results via a webcam? We all know AJinFLA & the rest of these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists would claim someone outside the view of the webcam (if I had one) was providing me clues!)
Notice these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists claim, it Subjectivists who refuse to PROVIDE PROOF, yet when I offer to do that very thing via blind tests, they come up with a myriad of excuses ranging from:
andy_19191 claiming unless I tempt the Lunatic Fringe Objectivist's with valid data, which would require my going back and getting a high-level science education and then providing them audibility data, my blind tests are a waste of time and money!
Richard BassNut Greene who claims: "No matter how foolish the claims seem at first, they need to be tested before they are dismissed. Yet he refuses to accept my tests, my results, my witnesses of these tests and finally my offer to allow RBG to & personally witness me taking said tests, rather he dismisses them outright and claims I am DEMANDING he come to FLA.
Lastly there is the most Looney of all the when it comes to making excuses, I present...
AJinFLA. He'll only accept blind tests if an ABX comparator is used! In his mind no other blind test is valid and then he says why (do) I need to be there to watch you imagine hearing differences, which I was going to suggest - could easily have been done with a web camera - and save me the drive? So he won't accept a blind test without an ABX as being scientific, but he'll participate via webcam and accept those results as scientific? Or to even offer the excuse that because he doesn't like tubed equipment, we cannot perform a vaild test using tubed components is really assinine!
As I've stated many times before these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists DO NOT really want to know the truth. They don't really care "IF" Subjectivists can or cannot detected differences in components & wires. All they want is to appear correct and espouse their audio religon, even when they're incorrect. Otherwise why would they need to be tempted (like andy_19191 says) into wanting to learn the truth? The Lunatic Fringe Objectivists misleadingly claim Subjectivists won't take blind tests, yet when I offer to do so eveyone can plainly see it's these Lunatic Fringe Objectivists who want no part of it, not this Subjectivist.
I now, nothing will ever please them, the two parts can NEVER meet. These Lunatic Fringe Objectivists believe wires sound the same they want to use just any wires. But even worse because they don't believe components sound different unless they are broken or faulty, so they see my objection to using an ABX comparator as an excuse. Wherein as I believe wires make a differences I want at least decent quality wires used and because I know components sound different, I only want the wires changed NOT the insertion of an ABX comparator into the system.
As far as I'm concerned they don't want the truth otherwise they'd accept a blind test wherein the wires and the person changing the wires would remain unseen by myself and the witnesses for the duration of the test. To me that's a vaild blind test. So concerning the Subjectivists vs Objectivists debate, for me the battle is over! I cannot debate someone who doesn't want to know the truth...
Thetubeguy1954
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA,I remember that post quite well. I needed some time to rest as trying to talk intelligently & rationally with people who deliberately twist the truth, mis-direct topics and don't actually defend what they say can be quite taxing.
I do have great respect of objectivists of character here on PHP, Tomservo & Jneutron come to mind immediately. I know of others, some personally like Roger Russell and others just from reading like Dr Linkwitz, that also hold in great respect.
Now you and every other objectivist can choose to do one of 3 things.
1) Ignore this topic outright.
2) Discuss why Objectivists tell the mistruth that Subjectivists believe ALL measurements are useless.
3) Misdirect and twist by talking about other things besides to actual topic.The choice is yours and your character will determine what you do.
TG54 - I'd love to see you in the midst of a group of black people and shout out: You're all N#$$@*S and then tell them you were only "joking & needling" them. Sorry POLLYinFLA but I see such behavior for what it is, the actions of a sick mind.http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29721.html
How do you know I'm not black? You disgust me with you ignorant racist bile. Get help with your mental problems outside of this board. Soon.
TG54 - As I've said many times before you're behaving like a child who torments a dog by constantly prodding him with a stick, feeeling safe in what you do because you can hide behind the length of chain that restrains the dog. Then when you're caught poking the dog by it's owners you proclaim I was ONLY playing with him. Just like you want me to believe you're ONLY "joking & needling" me.
Your fantasies about someday perpetrating violence against me, aka "biting" me the "prodder", needs to be addressed at the same time. GET HELP.
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA,Responded to my comment of: I'd love to see you in the midst of a group of black people and shout out: You're all N#$$@*S and then tell them you were only "joking & needling" them. Sorry POLLYinFLA but I see such behavior for what it is, the actions of a sick mind.
With this comment: How do you know I'm not black?Obviously I don't know if you're black or not. I used it as an example of a general analogy that everyone could & would understand. If you happen to be black we could just as easily state it as: I'd love to see you in the midst of a group of muslims and shout out: You're all idol worshippers and then tell them you were only "joking & needling" them.
Or would you prefer If you happen to be black we could just as easily state it as: I'd love to see you in the midst of a group of germans and shout out: You're all Jew killers and then tell them you were only "joking & needling" them.
So as you hopefully now see race isn't what mattered you brainless twit. With the muslims it was religon and with the germans it was guilt of past atrocities. The example was of someone calling someone else something they found offensive face-to-face THAT was the point of the example. Just like I tell you I find your childish behavior offense, yet you continue on with it because as you say, you were only "joking & needling" me.
It's you and your sick mind who only say that example as a race issue. It's YOU who disgusts me with your constant ignorant offensive bile. Now that you've seen it from a POV that you finally grasped, perhaps you'll finally get help with YOUR mental problems outside of this board and hopefully that will be very soon.
In fact more proof of your sick demented mind is how you interpret my comments as being a fantasy about perpetrating violence against you! That's paranoia Polly! Truth is you're a coward, who hides behind the moniker of a computer and is perhaps getting afraid because you've begun to see how someday, someone, somewhere with a lot less restraint than I have will be "biting" you the "prodder", and trust me you'll deserve whatever you get. So take my advice and get help now or ASAP! Oh yes, FYI I've never ever hit anyone first & sometimes didn't hit back after being hit, so no bird brain I'm not the violent rabid dog you want to believe I am! As I stated in print many times before I'm trying to help you, not hurt you.
Finally if you honestly believed all this trash you say about me being a mentally unstable & violent person, what kind of person would continue provoking someone like that? Hmmmmm??? This is just another pathetic attempt at trying to make yourself look good, by making another person look bad. Which I'm sorry to say is yet more proof of your sick, demented, childish, behavior. You need real help, trust me I know. I used to be an alcohol/drug consular so I've seen my share of sick minds and you fit right in there. Hopefully you'll either see your behavior for what it is and change on your own, or one day help will be desperately needed.
Thetubeguy1954
And he's obviously overly obsessed with you.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake,You are really quite the character. Whenever I say anything you constantly demand proof of what I'm saying, so I provided proof via actual statements from one of your fellow lunatic fringe objectivists who specifically said: “…you (TG1954)consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.”
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29643.htmlAnd then so you couldn't proclaim it was an isolated opinion by one a sole lunatic-fringe objectivist. I took Audiohobby's response: “Yep, you captured the foolishness that pervades thinking of many on this board.” http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29649.html
So when I do what you constantly demand: i.e. provide proof, you claim I'm personalizing the topic and I'm obsessed with POLLYinFLA. I remember when you thought I was obsessed with you as well! These actions on your part is just more typical lunatic fringe objectivist behavior. You don't address the actual topic at hand that objectivists claim SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS! Perhaps if you could address the actual topic we'd get somewhere, but I'm NOT holding my breath.
Thetubeguy1954
For some reason, you can't admit that you believe that you hear differences between various interconnects and speaker cables but have not proved that you can.If you take offense at such questions, that's your own personal problem, not mine, not AFinFla's, nor anyone else's.
You will have to ask the individuals concerned why they make the assertions they do.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,You're still not discussing the topic at hand, objectivists LIE when they say: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS
That's the topic. I'll not allow you to mis-direct or sidetrack me any longer. Talk about the topic!
Sorry you don't like that but that's your problem but I did talk about the topic.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
See link below for complete explination...
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,Either discuss why objectivists lie when they say subjectivists believe all measurements are uselss, or please stop wasting my time. YOU are the one who chose to get involved and yet you constantly say ask POLLYinFLA! Why bother getting involved if you really have nothing to add?
You made a quite valient attempt at mis-directing the topic though. and where's my thanks for bringing all the discord into your life. huh? You posted this quote "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony." ------Heraclitus So why aren't you thanking me for all the fairest harmony that's coming your way?
Thetubeguy1954
Ask AJinFLA about it.You started the thread and it's all about AJinFLA and then whine about "objectivists." You engage in a personal vendetta and then whine when people point it out.
Anyway, when markrohr says you are really off topic, you agree with him.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,What I admitted to markrohr that was "off topic" was posting about you being the Hypocrite you are. Do you really have this difficult a time following what's actually happening? No wonder you're so confused so many times.
Now as far as POLLYinFLA it's not the personal vendetta you want to twist it into being, in your typical objectivist misdirecting way. The thread I started was about lunatic-fringe objectivists like POLLYinFLA and yourself. I simply used POLLYinFLA's quote as it illustarted perfectly the point I was making. Had any of your other fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists stated it as nicely as Polly did I would have quoted them as well! So no Pat D-Cake, it's not a personal vendetta. Heck it's not even a vendetta, it's only bringing to light the many stupid lies objectivists tell about subjectivists.
Get read as Part 2 is already in the making...
So you've got a part 2 coming up. I'm not shakin' in my boots.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,It's NOT meant to make you or anyone else "shake in their boots" It only meant to reveal the mistruths spoken by one group about another.
PD - And he's obviously overly obsessed with you.Indeed. A rather unhealthy habit IMHO.
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
POLLYinFLA,I'm hardly obsessed with you. I just have a low tolerance towards accepting the bullshit that you post...
Yeah, that's true, too.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake,If you & your fellow lunatic fringe objectivists spent 1/10th of time you take to twist the truth, mis-direct and evade the topic at hand, i.e. Objectivists LIE when they say Subjectivists believe all measurements are useless, by clearly and directly answering questions you're asked. It wouldn't have to be this way.
And act accordingly.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,Even when I address you civilly you act like a horses pa-toot! I know quite well the difference between "SOME" & "EVERY!" In fact it's because I understand that difference that I understood how idiotic it was for one of your fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists to proclaim and I quote! "“…you (TG1954)consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.”
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29643.html
See Pat it appears it's this lunatic-fringe objectivist who appears uncapable of understanding when I don't find "SOME" of todays accepted audio measurements useful, that doesn't mean I believe "EVERY" audio measurement is useless! Now if you spent as much time correcting your fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists when they make such moronic comments as you do trying to discredit my post for bringing this to everyone's attention, we might actually get somewhere.
Interestingly enough I noticed you still continue to do exactly what I say lunatic fringe objectivists do, i.e. mis-direct the topic by evading the actual topic at hand, which is: Objectivists LIE when they say: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS Why not try discussing the actual topic or is that too complicated for you?
You don't act as though you understand the difference between "some" and "every." Stop whining.You quote one person and attribute this to "objectivists." You will have to ask audiohobby what he meant by saying AJ had captured it--and I don't think you interpreted the whole sensibly anyway. Stop whining.
If you think calling people "lunatic fringe" is being civil, you have a strange idea of civility.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake,The only one whining here is YOU! Poor me I'm an objectivist and thetubeguy1954 is attributing remarks made by POLLYinFLA to me, WAAAAAAAAA.
Thetubeguy1954 acts as though the comments made by "some" lunatic-fringe objectivist applies to "every" lunatic-fringe objectivist! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
Thetubeguy1954 quotes one lunatic-fringe objectivists person and attributes this to all lunatic-fringe objectivists. Thetubeguy1954 should ask audiohobby what he meant by saying AJ had captured it--and besides I don't think thetubeguy1954 interpreted the whole sensibly anyway and everyone knows I'm always right! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
If thetubeguy1954 thinks calling people "lunatic fringe" is being civil, he has a strange idea of civility....
Pat D-Cake I'll respond to the long winded whine by saying when I think of the many other things I could call you and your fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists. Trust me calling you lunatic-fringe is being civil :^)
Thetubeguy1954
A number of us holding different perspectives have been pointing this out to you in different ways for days."when I think of the many other things I could call you and your fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists. Trust me calling you lunatic-fringe is being civil :^)"
It's still just argumentem ad hominem against me, nothing to prove your own hearing abilities. Strong language doesn't constitute an argument.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,You really need to let this morbid obession with me go. Are you going to start coming to Orlando and stalking me next? I readily admitted here: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/30019.html
That posting about you being a Hypocrite is something I should have refrained from. How many times do you need to read or hear that before it sinks in? You're starting to worry me with this obsession you have with having to respond to almost everything I write. You are a sick demented man, who cannot refrain from having the last word and beating a dead horse. I believe this is the 2nd time I've told you personally and the 3rd time altogether that I stated, I should have refrained from posting about you being a Hypocrite! Not because you aren't a hypocrite, that you are, but rather because it had nothing to really do with my actual topic THE BIGGEST LIES OBJECTIVISTS TELL ABOUT SUBJECTIVISTS.
Now how many more times are you going to ask the same question? Hmmmm????
Peter Aczel sometimes gets into personalities, too, but his main emphasis is on whether certain things are true or not. You, however, are explicitly making the topic things some people say about other people, which is not really an audio topic.One also wonders who you are to speak on behalf of subjectivists. As well, so far, your main "objectivist" seems to be AJinFla, whom you take to be representative of "objectivists," whatever they may be asw you do not begin to define that. So, you are really attacking AJinFla rather than "objectivists" as a whole. Your diatribe really reduces to personal vendetta which you try to hide by generalizing it.
You propose that most subjectivists accept the following:
TG54
"There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here.
The amp specifications you provide look to be very good, as far as they go. I wouldn't even consider it, however, without some indications as to what its power capabilities are!
Now, as for your questions. First of all, you as for a single parameter to define soundstage, imaging, resolution, and accuracy. It is much more complex than that. It takes an ensemble.
As for producing an illusion of a live performance, this seems to do a pretty good job. We could not manage a trip down to hear it at the time, but Wes Philips has a write up:
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
Second, soundstaging, imaging, and psychoacoustic realism are functions of the program materials, processing, speakers, and set up than they are functions of an amplifier. But I personally look to an amp to reproduce the signals input in amplified form so as to drive speakers. Some amplifiers, especially those with high output impedances, may benefit some speakers which need that.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake,We cannot intelligently & rationally talk about audio and our POV on audio issues if one side i.e. objectivists like POLLYinFLA deliberately misrepresent my or other subjectivists audio POV.
I provided you with a perfect example when POLLYinFLA deliberately & falsely proclaimed that I, a subjectivist “…consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.” I even gave you a link to this claim.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29643.htmlI also proved this was not an isolated belief for Audiohobby replied to POLLYinFLA's post with: “Yep, you captured the foolishness that pervades thinking of many on this board.” http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29649.html
Now Pat, if you agree with my statement the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear. As it appears you do when you say: The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here. "IF" that's true Pat and it represents what rational objectivists believe. Then what's the problem with my statement that it's a deliberate falsehood by the lunatic-fringe objectivists that ridicule subjectivists and then proclaim that because subjectivists believe this it means they believe ALL measurements are useless?
Also why berate & disparage subjectivists when they use their ears as the final arbitrator, "IF" you as a rational objectivist also believe the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear? If the measurements don't correlate what else should we use besides our ears?
Thetubeguy1954
fd
Clark,Go back and read all the responses, these lunatic fringe objectivists have talked about everything but the topic I raised...
whatever that means--and you haven't specified.Some measurements correlate with what we hear and some don't. I shouldn't follow you in adopting your misleading statements but sometimes I don't notice them. The ensemble of measurents of the sort typically found in audio reviews do not tell us how the system will sound, although they may tell us some things useful.
In any case, I prefer to have an amp that has no specific sound of its own, or as close to it as is practicable. You evidently don't. There is nothing in the specs for the Crown Macro Reference amp to sound different from a number of other powerful amps when not overdriven. That is also a correlation. What doesn't correlate so well are measurements and perception, which involves our own cognitive processing. I don't expect my amp to sound much different from lots of other good amps. For a simple stereo system, I look for speakers that will do what I want them to do. I don't expect my amp to correct their deficiencies.
I notice you haven't bothered to disagree with me when I pointed out that one cannot expect any single measurement to be sufficient to determine how a system sounds.
TG54
"Also why berate & disparage subjectivists when they use their ears as the final arbitrator, "IF" you as a rational objectivist also believe the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear? If the measurements don't correlate what else should we use besides our ears?"I'm sorry you feel berated and disparaged. As I said above, I should have questioned your formulation: Some measurements are more useful than others. However, those who use sighted auditioning do not rely on only their ears but also rely on their knowledge.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,I'm going to attempt one last time of talking with you rationally sans and Pat D-Cake remarks etc. Let's see where that takes us. It's funny how you claim I'm personalizing this topic while you and POLLYinFLA just continue posting back and forth talking about me! The ONLY reason I used POLLYinFLA is because he stated specifically what I said many of your fellow lunatic fringe objectivists believe, i.e. SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS! It was a perfect example so I used it period. If you or any of your other lunatic fringe objectivists said it so clearly I would have used their post as an example as well.
This behavior on your part is IMHO just more typical lunatic fringe objectivist mis-direction. Why won't you simply discuss the subject in question, which is: Why do objectivists lie and claim SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS? Now I'll admit I should have given you more credit for stating "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here. I honestly believe that statement 100%. I also believe the rational, intelligent objectivists here also know it's true that today's accepted measurements in audio correlate very little to with what we hear & percieve. Thus these objectivists wouldn't make such an idiotic statement of: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS!
The reason I didn't address your comments how one cannot expect any single measurement to be sufficient to determine how a system sounds. Is twofold a) it really has nothing to do about why the lunatic fringe objectivists lie and state SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS! and b) I don't know of any group of measurements as used today in audio that will tell me what I want to know about a component, so I saw this as a moot point. In order to develope a set of measurements that fairly accurately correlates with what we hear & perceive will take as Tom Danley said extensive and costly research, that at this present time no scientist or audio manufacturer sees as cost effective. When they finally do these test & discover how & why the human ear/brain determines almost instantly what's live and what's recorded music, that will be a set of measurements both subjectivists & objectivists can embrace.
Unlike some of others here who seem to believe (if I understand their POV correctly) that soundstage HxDxW and imaging is the sole responsibity of speaker setup. I absolutely & vehemently must disagree with that POV! I have heard an audio system that was setup well, speakers postioned perfectly that threw an incedible soundstage. Yet after changing the owners Counterpoint SA20/20 with his roomates Crown IC-150 the soundstage collapsed and went from having an almost 3-D presentation to a soundstage that was paper thin! I was curious as to which specs could tell me why the Counterpoint threw such a great soundstage and the Crown such a horrible one? It's not simply a matter of proper speaker placement as some would suggest.
Finally Pat there's a difference bewteen just feeling I'm berated & disparged and actually being berated & disparged!
Main Entry: be·rate
Pronunciation: bi-'rAt, bE-
Function: transitive verb
: to scold or condemn vehemently and at length
synonym see SCOLDMore than one objectivist here has berated me simply for prefering the Mastersound Reference 845 when I stated my OPINION that it produces the most realistic replication of live music I've ever heard from any amplifier. I've NEVER said it is THE BEST amplifier only the best I've ever heard.
Main Entry: dis·par·age
Pronunciation: \di-ˈsper-ij, -ˈspa-rij\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -aged; -ag·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to degrade by marriage below one's class, disparage, from Anglo-French desparager to marry below one's class, from des- dis- + parage equality, lineage, from per peer
Date: 14th century
1 : to lower in rank or reputation : degrade
2 : to depreciate by indirect means (as invidious comparison) : speak slightingly aboutAdditionally more than one objectivist has disparaged my choice of prefering the Mastersound Reference 845 as well. Now if you honestly feel sorry others have berated and disparaged me for my opinions & beliefs I sincerely appreciate your concern.
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
POLLYinFLA,The only "demon" I battling is you and your lies and idiotic comments, of which SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS
is a classic example. Even your fellow objectivist, Pat D readily admits that most rationals amongst objectivist & subjectivist alike readily admit & know that today's accepted measurements correlate very little with what we hear and perceive. Like Pat said jj said the same thing, so there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here.It's unrational objectivists like yourself who espouse such trash as this as if it factual that are the main cause of the dissention here on PHP.
Thetubeguy1954
Yeah, but that's the next stage in the analysis. I'm not sure he's ready for that one.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,You whine that I my posts personalize the arguement yet you and POLLYinFLA have many posts which talk ONLY about me and NOTHING about audio! Now that's definitely the kettle calling the pot black... On less of course you believe 2 wrongs make a right?
You original post was not about audio, but about what certain people say about others. Peter Aczel's discussion of 10 audio lies discussed things some people really hold and he discussed whether those things are correct or not.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,The original post was about audio. It was about how lunatic-fringe objectivists LIE, about subjectivists when discussing our differing audio POV's.
As usual you're wrong yet once again. Get ready for Part 2.
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,The discussion was quite simple. Objectivists LIE when they say: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS. Now if you believe that topic is confusing & contrary to fact, that's YOUR personal problem, not mine!
First I cannot possibly fathom what's confusing about that statement. Second it is NOT contrary to fact, especially taken in the light of one of your fellow lunatic-fringe objectivists stating:
“…you (TG1954)consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.” As can be verified here...http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29643.html
I will readily admit that you made a very valient & concerted attempt to mis-direct the actual topic via the many tangents that discussed anything & everything except, Objectivists LIE when they say: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS. Perhaps that's were you got confused Pat? Perhaps you began to believe the many tangents were the topic, even though I told you more than once you weren't discussing the actual topic at hand? Is that how you became confused? Funny thing how no one else seemed to get confused or unable to follow the actual topic at hand. Perhaps this supposed confusion is yet one more attempt on your part at objectivist mis-direction?.
Pat you really need to try to stick with & discuss the actual topic of the thread. Stop trying to prove to everyone how "intelligent" you are by constantly & subtly mis-directing the topic being discussed into one of your many side tangets. I'm sorry Pat but your attempts at objectivist mis-direction didn't work this time. Nice try though :^)
Also, if you want to know why AJinFLA posts the things he does, I suggest you ask him.I have discussed your topic, just not in the way you want, since your topic makes contrary to fact assumptions.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
thunk!
Clifffffff,All you really need do is follow your own advice and stop reading my posts! It appears to really bother objectivists when their dirty little tricks are openly spoken about...
Yes Clifffff it's quite sad that you'd say just yesterday "I stopped reading his posts long ago." yet here you are unable to stop reading & commenting on my posts! Just 24 hours later!http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/29648.html
nt
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=36074Hysterical and frightening at the same time. I've always figured most of the subjectivists here to be somewhat mentally dysfunctional, but in a harmless sort of way. The last part gets a little scary.
I hope I don't have to put a restraining order on TG54 anytime 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
POLLYinFLA,Thanks for the laugh. You're going to put out a restraining order on someone who publically claims the thought of meeting you disgusts him? Someone will do everything in his power to avoid being near you? That just shows how deranged you thought process is. Trust me if I know it's you, I'll be going the other way. I never want to meet you for any reason.
...private blog area is going to record the truth, and nothing but the truth? It's sad that you, or anyone else, would put yourselves in position to be deceived by one so wicked. I chickened out of nothing, to say that I did indicates willful ignorance at the very least. I believe your particular issue is much deeper than that however.
After a quick look at Peter Aczel's list Wellfed, I can see only one sentence I agree with and that is Peter Aczel's "The Golden Ears want you to believe that their hearing is so keen, so exquisite, that they can hear tiny nuances of reproduced sound too elusive for the rest of us. Absolutely not true." -I agree, May!!
One sentence of Peter Aczel's which I vehemently disagree with is "Just say no to CD treatments."
Coincidentally, just before I read Peter Aczel's list, I had been re-reading Robert Harley's article on freezing CDs (Stereophile October 1990) - in my opinion one of the most significant articles in the history of Hi Fi. Particularly his last two paragraphs.> > > "My fascination with CD tweaks stems not from their intrinsic abilities to improve CD sound as much as it comes from the realisation that if ANY tweak has even the SLIGHTEST audible effect, conventional digital audio theory is turned upside down. More importantly, however, the widespread acceptance and belief in CD tweaks may make skeptical engineers LISTEN for themselves, perhaps sparking an investigation into why they work. Such research may lead to fundamental new discoveries in digital audio that will drastically improve its performance.
Furthermore, I see CD tweaks as a Rosetta Stone to an audio engineering establishment that dismisses the possibility that freezing a CD or painting it black, or putting green paint around the edge, or making it from a different material, could affect its sound. Because these treatments are considered the epitome of audiophile lunacy. Perhaps some measurement-orientated scientists may, if they listen for themselves, realize that audiophiles are not always the demented mystics they are often accused of being." < < <
Regards,
May Belt.
I've often remarked that the function of audio magazines seems to be to sell turnkey technology: The quick brown truck delivers a large brown box inside which is a black metal box which you plug into your system and live happily with for a while. Then comes another truck...
When arguing about the lack of need for experimentation in audio, I've often read objectivists posting that they "don't need to bang my head against concrete to know it hurts". That argument fails on two levels.First, we all learned as young children that hitting our heads against something hard would hurt. I would wager that ALL of us learned it the hard way, if you'll pardon the pun, and NONE of us learned it via a parental lecture.
Second, after a few years of martial arts training many moons ago, I learned to break concrete bricks with my head, as well as other parts of my body. It doesn't hurt - once you are properly trained. I would suggest that hearing differences between cables, amps, etc is simply a matter of training. Anyone can learn to do so if they are motivated, just as anyone can learn to break concrete bricks.
The believers are just that - believers. Reality must be experienced.
"First, we all learned as young children that hitting our heads against something hard would hurt. I would wager that ALL of us learned it the hard way, if you'll pardon the pun, and NONE of us learned it via a parental lecture"?? Also true of
Sticking fingers in 230V socket
Jumping off high building
Leaping into lion's den
etc etc
> ?? Also true ofSticking fingers in 230V socket
Jumping off high building
Leaping into lion's den
<A matter of degree only. As a child, I was burned when I got a shock from an electric radio (I also learned that unplugged electronics can still carry voltage!), most kids have fallen off something high and many people have been bitten by dogs or scratched by cats, or know someone who has. The point is that you learn this by experience. What you learn by reading (or by other non-experiential means) is a belief. That doesn't mean much of it isn't reality - but some of it may not be.
So it is with audio. If you are an objectivist, the chances are good that you have little or no experience comparing (by listening) that which you believe can make no difference. You believe this because you believe it, not because you know it. Opening one's mind doesn't mean accepting every little claim - rather it means that you decide to experiment for yourself. Or your mind is closed, the same as my mind is closed to certain things. But it's still only a belief.
"If you are an objectivist, the chances are good that you have little or no experience comparing (by listening) that which you believe can make no difference. "How could you possibly know this about anybody, you are making a huge presumption in order support an unreasonable point. Again, cos it bears repeating, those of objective persuasion (i.e. objective evaluation of components) subscribe to comparison by listening, however for a comparison to be valid as a basis for valid opinion, it needs to satisfy certain controls, controls that address inherent listener bias.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> How could you possibly know this about anybody, <The way I know much of what I know - experience. However, in order to satisfy your sense of fair play, I'll concede your point and start with you. What cables or amps have you compared? Any objectivist is encouraged to reply. It will only tell us about those on this board but it's a start. Also, when it comes to proper controls, how many DBT's have you participated in?
> controls that address inherent listener bias. <
Something else that bears repeating - Because my one bias when it comes to audio gear is that the best sounding item wins, unless it can be shown that I have other biases and what they are, there is no need to address them. I couldn't care less about brand names, looks, cost or any other potential biases you can name, including the bias that two items must sound different.
> The way I know much of what I know - experience. However, in order to satisfy your sense of fair play, I'll concede your point and start with you. What cables or amps have you compared? Any objectivist is encouraged to reply. It will only tell us about those on this board but it's a start. Also, when it comes to proper controls, how many DBT's have you participated in?I will not satisfy your curiosity ;-) and the original point still stands as you have made an assumption here that is invalid. That said, I look to measurements cos some of the more obvious differences between amplifiers are easily explained by measurements.
> Something else that bears repeating - Because my one bias when it comes to audio gear is that the best sounding item wins, unless it can be shown that I have other biases and what they are, there is no need to address them. I couldn't care less about brand names, looks, cost or any other potential biases you can name, including the bias that two items must sound different.
Well, in blind tests, the issues you state are so important to the outcome of the test that they are not assumed, hence the controls, at any rate "best sounding" can mean anything, the goals of most blind test are generally less ambigous.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
> I will not satisfy your curiosity ;-) and the original point still stands as you have made an assumption here that is invalid. <Show me where I got it wrong and I'll be happy to admit it. Sorry, you can't just say something is invalid - at least not 'round these here parts! :)
> I look to measurements cos some of the more obvious differences between amplifiers are easily explained by measurements. <
Yes. I would agree that any and all sonic differences between any two pieces of gear could be explained by measurements. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. We just have to find them, in some cases.
I agree with the first Aczel quote you posted as being the only (or one of the very few) true statements he made in the article. But I've jawed over Aczel enough on Critics Corner - people will think of him as messiah or pariah depending on their beliefs... as well they should, IMO. People will either believe or find reality via their own experimentation, whichever side of the Sub/Ob they're on. Without such experiementation, all we have is belief - either in sonic differences between things that science tells us can't exist, or in science itself. Without experimentation, our "reality" is simply a set of beliefs. Aczel has his set of beliefs and that's fine for him. I prefer to find my own way rather than blindly follow a path set for me by "believers".Consequently, I didn't "just say no" to CD treatments. I tried several of them and they didn't work for me. The difference between the Aczels and the subjectivists is that the latter isn't content to simply "believe". Aczel's reality isn't necessarily mine - and most of the time, it isn't.
x
$$
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
a
oo
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
You cannot tell the difference between product specifications and measurements, yet you intend to carry on a rational discussion about the lies "objectivists tell about subjectivists". Specifications are like newspaper headlines, they do not tell you much. Like the saying the devil is in detail, the measurements are the detail, it is the detail in measurements that defines (or characterises) performance not the headliness.You have flunked this test before you even started.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Hobby,There you go assuming again! You said as if you know that I cannot tell the difference between product specifications and measurements. Get real would you? This is just more typical objectvist mis-direction when confronted on their beliefs and lies! How do you know what I know about specs & measurements? Let's take THD shall we? One measures Total Harmonic Distortion to get the specification of: THD < 0.05%
What we were talking about BEFORE you attempted this typical objectivist misdirection is how objectivists lie and say subjectivists believe ALL measurements are useless, period! I then provided proof via POLLYinFLA's statement “…you (TG1954)consider them (measurements) useless and meaningless, because we really can't measure everything, so we might as well measure nothing and just listen with the trusty ol' ghost hearing measurement devices only, the ears.” and you agreed when you said: “Yep, you captured the foolishness that pervades thinking of many on this
board.”Now if you'd like to address the true topic of the post at hand rationally & intelligently, please do so!
And you just proved that you don't really understand the difference between specifications and measurements very well.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Unlike you Pat D-Cake I'm not afraid or ashamed to admit when I make a mistake. So YES I made a mistake and listed specs as measurents. You at least are remaining true to form behaving in your usual objectvist manner of pointing out things like errors in grammer or my reversing specs for measurements rather than simply address the topic at hand or answer the questions asked.I find it quite amusing that you'd attempt to continue Hobby's mis-direction of the topic of the post which I'll remind you is the The BIGGEST Lies Objectivists Tell About Subjectivists! By saying that I (TG1954) just proved that I don't really understand the difference between specifications and measurements very well. This is an especially amusing comment in light of the fact that I explained I knew the difference between the two. But as I said this is typical behavior of the lunatic-fringe objectvists with questionable character here on PHP.
Now "IF" you feel that my example of THD were I said that one measures Total Harmonic Distortion to get the specification of: THD < 0.05% is incorrect than by all means please educate by explaining why that is incorrect.
Finally just FYI those promises as you call them were for one of POLLYinFLA's beloved pro solidstate amps, the Crown MA-5002VZ as taken from their webpage: http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/amps/128313.pdf (pages 18 & 19)
You said specifications are derived from measurements. Well, maybe they are and maybe they aren't. Manufacturers often overstate the specifications, for example, though with the legally required ones they probably understate them a bit. But they are different things, whether you like it or not.I have not corrected your grammar.
Funny that you don't respond to the analysis of some of the presuppositions of your questions.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat D-Cake,I stated that specifications are derived from measurements. Although I'm fairly sure I knew that to be a correct statement BEFORE making that comment I did a little research. Here's info on THD as taken from the link below, which FYI is about pro-audio components.
===================================================================
THD. Total Harmonic DistortionWhat is tested? A form of nonlinearity that causes unwanted signals to be added to the input signal that are harmonically related to it. The spectrum of the output shows added frequency components at 2x the original signal, 3x, 4x, 5x, and so on, but no components at, say, 2.6x the original, or any fractional multiplier, only whole number multipliers.
How is it measured? This technique excites the unit with a single high purity sine wave and then examines the output for evidence of any frequencies other than the one applied. Performing a spectral analysis on this signal (using a spectrum, or FFT analyzer) shows that in addition to the original input sine wave, there are components at harmonic intervals of the input frequency. Total harmonic distortion (THD) is then defined as the ratio of the rms voltage of the harmonics to that of the fundamental component. This is accomplished by using a spectrum analyzer to obtain the level of each harmonic and performing an rms summation. The level is then divided by the fundamental level, and cited as the total harmonic distortion (expressed in percent). Measuring individual harmonics with precision is difficult, tedious, and not commonly done; consequently, THD+N (see below) is the more common test. Caveat Emptor: THD+N is always going to be a larger number than just plain THD. For this reason, unscrupulous (or clever, depending on your viewpoint) manufacturers choose to spec just THD, instead of the more meaningful and easily compared THD+N.
Required Conditions. Since individual harmonic amplitudes are measured, the manufacturer must state the test signal frequency, its level, and the gain conditions set on the tested unit, as well as the number of harmonics measured. Hopefully, it's obvious to the reader that the THD of a 10 kHz signal at a +20 dBu level using maximum gain, is apt to differ from the THD of a 1 kHz signal at a -10 dBV level and unity gain. And more different yet, if one manufacturer measures two harmonics while another measures five.
Full disclosure specs will test harmonic distortion over the entire 20 Hz to 20 kHz audio range (this is done easily by sweeping and plotting the results), at the pro audio level of +4 dBu. For all signal processing equipment, except mic preamps, the preferred gain setting is unity. For mic pre amps, the standard practice is to use maximum gain. Too often THD is spec'd only at 1 kHz, or worst, with no mention of frequency at all, and nothing about level or gain settings, let alone harmonic count.
Correct: THD (5th-order) less than 0.01%, +4 dBu, 20-20 kHz, unity gain
Wrong: THD less than 0.01%
====================================================================
As you can clearly see it's the measurements that provided the specifications, which is precisely what I said. Now whether or not you're willing to believe what the manufacturer says is up to you or anyone else who reads them. I find it quite amusing that objectivists bow at the altar of measurements, yet don't trust that what's provided by the manufacturer is correct. That caution of course is not without some merit for as the article quite clearly states without knowing the conditions under which the measurements were taken one cannot know the validity of the specification!
====================================================================
Pat D-Cake you state: I have not corrected your grammar. Not this time, but you have in the past. I was simply using it as an example of objectivist misdirection as opposed to addressing the actual topic.Thetubeguy1954
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,This has nothing to do with the actual topic of objectivists LIE when the say SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS! Why not address the actual topic at hand?
Besides if you cannot understand what specs are from what I've said, you'll have to do more reading for yourself. After all there are so many to choose from are we talking about product specifications? technical specifications? a manufacturers specifications? or design specifications to name a few. So how do I know which one you're specifically refering too?
But in all honesty I'm not going top allow you to continue to mis-direct the topic. Discuss why objectivists say: SUBJECTIVISTS THINK ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE USELESS. Let's please talk about the topic I raised, not what you'd rather mis-direct the topic to be about ok?
Thetubeguy1954
You get all upset at AJinFla's rhetorical and midly humorous exaggeration, but you don't get upset when subjectivists make all sorts of exaggerated statements--but then you do the same thing, too. For example, you can't get suspending judgment when there is a lack of evidence and so you attribute some universal negative propositions to me.Quit whining.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,#1) I don't believe POLLYinFLA statement was either rhetorical and or a mildly humorous exaggeration. I've stated numerous times in the past it's all to easy to say the nastiness that lives in your heart and then when called to the carpet for such childish, moronic statements pretend you're simply "joking" with the person. IMHO this type of behavior ceases to be "joking" the moment the person it's directed at tells you it's not seen as joke and is offensive to them! I've told this to POLLYinFLA numerous times, yet still he continues on with his "jokes"!
#2) I don't get upset when subjectivists make all sorts of exaggerated statements--but then IYHO I do the same thing, too. The reason I don't get upset because I don't see much of what you believe are exaggerated statements as being such. Rather it's simply something you personally believe, so to YOU that makes it an exaggerated statement. Those are opinions Pat and not directed at anyone. There's nothing to get upset about when people simply have opposing POVs.
I'll "Quit whining" as you call it when you speak clearly & precisely what you believe, instead of always talking in circles, mis-directing and/or coming from the postion that cannot be proved. A perfect example of Pat D being vague and mis-directing is your response here to my previous post. I asked you to simply discuss the topic at hand, i.e. objectivists LIE when they say subjectivists believe all measurements are useless.
And your response to that is this: You get all upset at AJinFla's rhetorical and midly humorous exaggeration, but you don't get upset when subjectivists make all sorts of exaggerated statements--but then you do the same thing, too. For example, you can't get suspending judgment when there is a lack of evidence and so you attribute some universal negative propositions to me.
Quit whining.Pat NOTHING about your response addresses the previous post or the topic of the original post! I don't need to stop whining Pat, you need to start discussing the topic of thread and not the tangets you want to mis-direct it to...
I have often enough pointed out that you often confuse "some" and "every."
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: