|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.106.240.93
In Reply to: The BIGGEST Lies Objectivists Tell About Subjectivists (Part 1) posted by thetubeguy1954 on March 9, 2007 at 07:57:46:
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)
Follow Ups:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: