Pricing out the competition

[RocketScientist]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Curious - when has science been about accepting anyone's word, no matter how credentialed?

Well you seem to be all about trying to discredit anyone you don't agree with and/or engage them in pointless debates. Since when is that about advancing the state of audio reproduction? Some of us are trying to make a contribution to audio. You're simply running around throwing rocks at people and offering very little in the way of anything constructive that furthers the premise of this website. That's what trolls do.

I'm interested in helping people get better sound for their money. It's clear that's not your main priority. So we're apparently on this planet for different reasons.

[Alvis]

Not to stir the pot, but a musical device such as a stereo does not need to have measurements.

When somebody says a Martin guitar sounds good, it is not followed by some geeky measurement.
When that persons peers hear that same guitar, most would agree, word gets around, good or bad.

So what makes it sound good? Is the the size of the sound hole? The woods they used to build it? How about the finish, nitro? The tension used to clamp the pieces while gluing?

-The point being, it is a combination of possibly thousands of measurable points. It's symbiotic.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements does not make a comprehensive description.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements can be used to mislead the public.

So with regard to being "Transparent", the microphone has already coloured the sound, so you can forget about "true live sound".

Now with regard to the master track, it has to be played back on something. Who's to say what this master track is "supposed" to sound like?, after all we need a device to hear what the track is saying.

If said device measures "good" in a few categories does that make it a true reference? Hardly.

These "measurements" are the equivalent of tools, like chisels, calipers, scrapers etc. Having good tools does not make the perfect guitar, it only helps.
Having poor tools may make it harder, but certainly not impossible.
A good craftsmen can make due with less, or substandard tools.

"A teaspoon of sugar makes it taste better" -In what context?
What's right for a cup of tea may be weak in a pot, might even taste funny on Bologna.

All that's left is the subjective opinion of the bulk of the population. If it sounds great, good for you, your product should succeed on it's own merits. You don't "need" to state a single measurement, aside from maybe the power output. We all know power outputs are fudged all the time so why should we trust these other measurements which are relatively insignificant.

Advertisers are constantly miss-leading you, case in point: Detergent A gets rid of 96% of dirt, Detergent B gets rid of 93% of dirt, a 3% difference. Now if I was to just show you the top of the chart, the last 10% (top of bar graph) it would appear that Detergent A is 30% better then Detergent B rather then 3%.

If it was an exact science, there would be no DIYaudio. It is more of an art form, craftsmanship if you will. You have your Monet's and your Robert Batemans.

Even the best glossy photograph is nothing compared to the real thing. It's smaller, everything is shiny and motionless. Even the perspective is different due to the geometry of the lens.
In the hands of a good photographer it still may be able to evoke emotion and bouquet.

Your ears are the only measurement tools that can combine all this into a judgement of reality.

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by RocketScientist

Robin Goldstein demonstrated over hundreds of tastings, when people know the price of wine they express an obvious overall preference for the more expensive wines.

The wine and audio analogy is not very good, there is no objective "goal" for the enjoyability of wine or food for that matter. Some people hate reds some only want sweet. BTW I have participated in many hundreds of wine tastings with no were near these results. My problem is that even when blind I could identify many of the wines making further objective assesment difficult. People prefering cheap wines is a new marketing sport, rarely are wines across a large cost gap comparable at the same age. BTW I have had many triple digit wines that I think suck both blind and sighted, in fact SY and I dumped out our glasses of a Leroy Mersault so rare only one barrel was made (250 bottles). OTOH I could give you a $5 Loire red that many would prefer to a recent Latour or Lafite.

EDIT - The wine tastings refered to by RG were for non-professionals so SY and I don't fit. And yes wine prices are stupid but no more stupid than top drawer vodka. Also could you get me some of those ultra-low noise bench supplies, the ones from Aglient all suck.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by RocketScientist

Well you seem to be all about trying to discredit anyone you don't agree with and/or engage them in pointless debates.

I'm not into personalities as you are. I'm into science and evidence and reasoning. If you can point to a post (on DIYA or anywhere else for that matter) where I've shown interest in discrediting people rather than pointing out flaws in their work, I'm all ears. I doubt you will because I am fairly consistent in my ignoring of personalities. But then again, you might surprise me - have at it

Since when is that about advancing the state of audio reproduction?

I agree its not, but then your perception (viewed through my own, of course) is clearly subject to distortion here. I have pointed up the evidence of your perceptual distortions before in our interactions. Stump up the evidence for mine please. We do agree its necessary to act as a check and balance to distorted human perception don't we?

Some of us are trying to make a contribution to audio.

I've acknowledged your contribution to audio on this very thread. I enjoy reading your blog in the main, and support what you're doing in general. Audio does indeed need shaking up, I'm planning to contribute to the shake-up as I've already hinted. So in many ways we are cut from the same cloth

But you're not consistent in your approach and you call out others for their inconsistency. That means you're applying different standards to others than you do to yourself. Don't like it when the boot's on the other foot?

You're simply running around throwing rocks at people and offering very little in the way of anything constructive that furthers the premise of this website.

I've posted over 3500 messages on DIYA. How many have you read and absorbed? I have 43 entries on my blog, but the stats provided don't currently show you've been a recent visitor. I'd be interested if you can back up your perception with statistics. Until then it just looks like bleating.

I'm interested in helping people get better sound for their money.

Actually I'd say you're more interested in people getting better measurements for their money. That's not a bad objective n itself.

It's clear that's not your main priority.

If its really clear that means its observable. So just post up the evidence.

So we're apparently on this planet for different reasons.

Yeah we are. Your reason is better measurements, mine is better sound.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

OTOH I could give you a $5 Loire red that many would prefer to a recent Latour or Lafite.

A rare beast indeed. Is it a Cab Franc? Tell us more

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

A rare beast indeed. Is it a Cab Franc? Tell us more

Yes one of her's (YMMV) Olga Raffault Chinon “Les Picasses” 2002 | Organic Wine Journal

The price is off the top of my head (at the domain) from a while ago maybe it's $10 or $15 by now, but when the Wine Spectator says why buy Latour for $1600 a bottle when you can buy Les Forts de Latour for $400 who cares. Geez we bought it for by the case at $6 even in the late 70's.

[RocketScientist]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

The wine tastings refered to by RG were for non-professionals so SY and I don't fit.

Actually, if you do your research, the tastings by RG included lots of wine professionals. But whatever. I understand people don't like others bringing the objective real world into their hobbies, fantasies, etc. So many react defensively, insist the fantasy is real, etc. If you really do your homework with RG, his research went impressively deep.

But the RG's, Peter Aczel's, and similar types who dare try and bring some objectivity into a subjective world of fantasy are used to being dismissed, discredited, lied about, and worse. It's just the nature of what they're doing.

Individual people consistently claim they're right and 600+ other people involved in carefully run blind trials must all, as a group, be wrong. The very methodology we use to determine if life saving drugs work or not somehow is useless for evaluating wines or audio gear. Mind you these individuals opposing the researchers, large groups, well documented results, peer reviewed papers, etc. almost never have anything even remotely as credible to offer to support their personal assertions besides some hearsay, recycled myths, armchair quarterbacking and really weak anecdotal evidence.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by RocketScientist

I understand people don't like others bringing the objective real world into their hobbies, fantasies, etc. So many react defensively, insist the fantasy is real, etc.

I have to say RS, your taste for irony is exquisite. Bravo!

[qusp]

particularly considering hes talking to the designer of one of the most useful and longest enduring high performance opamps ever made, the AD797.

[abraxalito]

The irony I noticed didn't have anything to do with him speaking to a revered IC designer. It was just the hilarity of him distancing himself from those who 'react defensively' whilst acting out textbook defensiveness n the interactions with me just prior.