I do, and I do thank you.
I didn't get to the ignore feature fast enough it seems. I haven't yet used it, and haven't found it in the system. Using a similar tactic and grandstanding for others while acting like I am replying to you ... If you don't know how to use the ignore feature, it's ok to ask. You'll be asking others though. 🙂
I have used ignore on a few people. They usually just just try to leverage it to their advantage.
Other than that, you still don't seem to understand that if I don't respond in way others will understand, then they will misunderstand and it only causes another set of problems. If you don't learn how to write to the forum instead of just one person, pretty soon you may have several people going off the deep end of misunderstanding.
It has nothing at all to do with grandstanding. At least, I mostly only have one person most badly misunderstanding at the moment. Could be worse.
Good day, sir.
Other than that, you still don't seem to understand that if I don't respond in way others will understand, then they will misunderstand and it only causes another set of problems. If you don't learn how to write to the forum instead of just one person, pretty soon you may have several people going off the deep end of misunderstanding.
It has nothing at all to do with grandstanding. At least, I mostly only have one person most badly misunderstanding at the moment. Could be worse.
Good day, sir.
Last edited:
a civil conversation about the topic requires that the objectivist acknowledge that maybe the subjectivist hears things they don't and the subjectivist acknowledge it may be just in their head.
Mmm…it makes me think I should buy a large stock of $500 speakers, rebrand them and price them at $50K. If people ever complain about what they hear, I would then tell them: “You need to learn to listen, get used to the sound of these $50K speakers and let your brain forget its preference for far cheaper models.”
This idea that “far superior” equipment may need arcane education and protracted habituation to be identifiable as such is very counterintuitive and uncomfortable.
the thing with this is that there are really companys out there that do it just like you described, specially regarding pricing/parts, its the "real" snakeoil
on the other hand there are companys that have "audiophile" parts/topologys that are reasonable priced and definitely legit
the other thing is: people are saying you need to listen for some time to get used to any difference because if you dont you may not hear any difference at all, its not like it sounds necessarly worse and you need to get used to "worse" sound
if you dont like it you dont like it, some manfactures just wanna make sure you can make an educated guess and not some guess on a feeling you got after 30 seconds
there are definitely black sheeps out there but its not this "whole industry", tho some wanna take advantage of it
Bonsai was likely closer right if it were really the right speakers.
It starts with the room. Electrostatic or other planar speakers can then make a very substantial difference in accurate reproduction, although they may not be cheap.
Its much like how condenser mics were a great development over dynamic mics for the most precise and detailed recordings. How much does a U87 cost compared to an SM57? Does it mean any difference in sound is total BS? Does it mean U87 is snake oil?
You won't fool many people who know how to listen with $500 speakers, but you are welcome to try.
Last edited:
Cognitive dissonance will work for me. For free.
There will be the same percentage of returns as with the $500 speakers.
I will be rich.
With the rest of the gang at HIGH END Munich.
Then I’ll hire golden ears, who have been trained for decades on how to listen. I’ll butter their bread with caviar and they’ll vouch for the superiority of my $50K speakers.
At that point, objectivists will roll in with ABX tests and I will counter with “these only work with a large population of two-headed golden ears listening to 2 systems at the same time while rubbing a small pouch of isomorphic crystals”.
I think this thread gave me a bullet proof business plan. I’m going for it!!!
Thank y’all!
There will be the same percentage of returns as with the $500 speakers.
I will be rich.
With the rest of the gang at HIGH END Munich.
Then I’ll hire golden ears, who have been trained for decades on how to listen. I’ll butter their bread with caviar and they’ll vouch for the superiority of my $50K speakers.
At that point, objectivists will roll in with ABX tests and I will counter with “these only work with a large population of two-headed golden ears listening to 2 systems at the same time while rubbing a small pouch of isomorphic crystals”.
I think this thread gave me a bullet proof business plan. I’m going for it!!!
Thank y’all!
We also have two opposing directions, ideologies, in audio: minimization and maximization.
One should at least know about these directions and be able to classify audio devices accordingly. It is simply not possible to combine these two directions, e.g. a 3 watt single ended amplifier with a 5 way 300 liter wooden cabinet loudspeaker. Or an analog 1,000 watt many stages complementary transistors push-pull double mono xyz amplifier with a full range loudspeaker.
Also, the possibilities of reproduction by means of these directions are different: with minimal systems, any music and any sound quality can be experienced to the maximum, with maximum systems only "high-end recordings" come into question;-)
One should at least know about these directions and be able to classify audio devices accordingly. It is simply not possible to combine these two directions, e.g. a 3 watt single ended amplifier with a 5 way 300 liter wooden cabinet loudspeaker. Or an analog 1,000 watt many stages complementary transistors push-pull double mono xyz amplifier with a full range loudspeaker.
Also, the possibilities of reproduction by means of these directions are different: with minimal systems, any music and any sound quality can be experienced to the maximum, with maximum systems only "high-end recordings" come into question;-)
Perhaps because an objectivist may know how to improve the measurements of an amp, but he does not know how to improve sound quality of that amp?
For the latter, an objectivist needs to automagically transform himself into a subjectivist.
But what is ‘sound quality ‘? If it’s not preference then it has to be an objective reference. For example with a tone wheel.
This is a common fallacy among subjectivist. Good performance and good sound are not mutually exclusive. OTOH the typical audiophile tweaks and mods have a good chance of ruining both performance and sound.
Hmmm. Time to read (the missed) John Dunlavy's interview in Stereophile, it gives a nice perspective about how to use measurements to be in the 'right' direction with the most problematic part of the reproduction's chain ( wrt artefacts induced) and then listening to fine tune things further. Please notice how he doesn't define itself as a subjectivist at all... rather the contrary!
https://www.stereophile.com/interviews/163/index.html
The title of this thread mentions objectivists and therefore implicitly declares the existence of subjectivists, but the author himself admitted that the thread was opened almost for fun.
I did it myself mentioning both objectivists and subjectivists several times in this thread just to be on-topic.
But, haven't you even realized that carrying forward this distinction makes no sense?
It only "helps" to create two imaginary factions that clash posting just to pass the time and as a matter of fact almost everyone has unfairly complained that threads of this kind are useless.
Threads of this kind are just as they are only because we continue to want to believe that these two illusory factions exist that oppose each other and "fight" each other in a loop that is as fatal as it is useless.
The distinction makes no sense because we are all both objectivists and subjectivists at the same time in any real life situation, audio included. IMSHO
A botanist studying a flower is an objectivist.
A botanist who smells a flower is a subjectivist.
No, he's just a perfect and complete human being with all its fragilities and all its fears and all its uncertainties.
And all his little/big personal achievements, ideals and passions.
And no intellectual arrogance.
Do you claim to be an objectivist?
Well, observe you yourself listen to music coming out of your loudspeaker and you’ll know "who" of the two are you.
Just for the record: I'm just a music lover so I'm not an objectivist and I'm not even a subjectivist, and now you know why.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark wrote,
”There are also reflex reactions that arise from deep in the brain. Its why you may jump when you see out of the corner of your eye a stick or a hose coiled up in the lawn. Part of your ancient brain registers "Snake!," and you move before you even know why.”
”There are also reflex reactions that arise from deep in the brain. Its why you may jump when you see out of the corner of your eye a stick or a hose coiled up in the lawn. Part of your ancient brain registers "Snake!," and you move before you even know why.”
Last edited:
Then why do you carry this distinction forward yourself? As I have already stated in this thread I don't believe there are people here that only measure the devices they design & build but do not listen.
No. I design and build devices mostly for my own pleasure. This process involves both measurements and listening.
Hi,
Thanks for the interview you posted even though it's almost 30 years ago and talks about speaker design (that he does without ever listening to them).
Even Beethoven seems to have composed his music while being deaf, yet this - however extraordinary - proves nothing.
They are exceptional exceptions, but little else.
The fact is that even if you were an objectivist you are instead a subjectivist when you listen to your system and in fact the designer you mentioned declares himself an objectivist and never listens to the speakers he himself designs. 😳
Please note that I'm not looking for absolute technological value that has no correspondence with the senses, and therefore I'm not looking for technology that bypasses the use of the senses.
I'm an extremely sensual person instead.
Do you want a small treat?
I recently read that regarding quantum physics it seems that certain smells are heard more than they are smelled.
And it would therefore seem that good hearing capabilities are also predictive of a good sense of smell.
Don't ask me for references that I can't find at the moment...
Thanks again for the link, but in this circumstance a swallow did not make a summer.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.