Sorry if I'm sincere, but sometimes I struggle to follow you.
You say that the mind plays tricks, and maybe sometimes it's true, but what you describe is a capacity of the mind and in fact you then call it such.
Selective listening is an exceptional skill, and it allows us to continue having a conversation with someone even amidst the general noise, but I don't see how this skill would interfere with listening or an ABX test.
Distraction, tiredness, boredom or the listener's lack of motivation interfere much more, but that's another story.
Not to mention the fact that the fact that the senses work one at a time is ignored and therefore an ABX test should necessarily be done with eyes closed.
I also believe that "in my opinion" is not acceptable when we are talking about science and not general opinions.
I absolutely disagree with the fact that it is "everything" to be classified in the emotional sphere because it is just your opinion and not psychological data.
Furthermore, in my opinion "emotional" does not mean "approximate" nor "illusory" nor "intangible" and I also think that the concreteness of matter and the ethereality of spirit coexist perfectly since they were created for each other in a marriage as perfect as it is still largely mysterious.
It's not nonsense, but perhaps a misunderstanding. ;-)
My talk of "silky highs" was intended to be and is just an example of one of the many possible ways of being able to communicate, not of a necessary jargon to be referred to, far from it.
If the person describing an auditory event can't describe it, well he won't describe it intelligibly, that's what he meant.
Furthermore, it is not nonsense not only because "silky highs" can very well exist and be just so perfectly described, but also because what kind of language has ancient, but also somewhat unknown, apparently, roots. ;-)
It's just another of those things that are freely attributed to audiophiles who at best are defined as "idiots" and who instead denote an ignorance about which you couldn't even give your opinion.
At most one could say "I'll hazard a guess", but not "it's nonsense" given that the description of the aesthetic experience in music is documented.
Adjectives like the following were used even before so-called audiophiles began to become listening "poets" themselves by sound professionals such as audio engineers.
The following is a quoting from the following linked site (referenced to 2004): "A guitar sound, for example, can be “thin” or “full”; a drum must be “singing out,” “wide-open,” “cool,” “not muffling,” “pretty tight,” to have “a little more of a smack.” 😍
You may find that page interesting:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380758/
When I talked about "beautiful" sound rather than "good" sound I meant that apart from personal preferences which are distortions of reality, when what comes out of your speakers has extended highs and not strident and scratchy, natural mids , sweet and well present without being excessive and the bass is solid, deep and never booming, apart from a realistic sound stage what more could you want?
In short, it was not to be taken literally, but interpreted in a slightly more sagacious manner.
IMO At the end of the day the audio is this: a beautiful reproduction of reality that should satisfy us at least as much as that of a film seen at home from a TVC that is not too huge and not too special (which only serves to give something else compared to to the one that cannot be given) whose scenes resemble everything except the life-size holographic 3D reproduction in your own home.
Audio, on the other hand, seems to be asking the impossible.
I haven't figured out the purpose yet, but there definitely has to be a purpose.
And it's probably not exactly an ethical purpose.
It seems like we keep playing at not understanding each other.
Musical preference is one thing (and I wasn't talking about that, because it obviously pertains to personal culture and taste) while the preference that some objectivists talk about is the one which, like the one above, only serves to create an alibi because if it is established that a beautiful sound (like the one described above) is also a correct sound, sound preferences are just smoke and mirrors because no one likes other shrill and acidic sounds, and long and booming basses.
If it were, it would be an exception (I was about to say "defect") and not "normality", i.e. timbric correctness.
See above.
I had deleted the fact that I had mentioned patents, but it was still in the clipboard.
You didn't mention patents, we agree.
I have never designed an electronic circuit, but I would really like to know how to do it, because my skills are different and I haven't had enough time to do it nor when I could have, but I didn't want to.
Not when I wanted to, but couldn't.
Furthermore, that is not the point because the real point here is that of the guy who wants to buy an amplifier that sounds beautiful (and I didn't say good) certainly making his own choices according to various principles and various priorities (first of all, the price) without having to first take an accelerated course in applied electronics.
Because it wouldn't do anyone any good.
I don't see what other world I could ever talk about other than my own, frankly.
Furthermore, to my lay eyes, the much available literature does not yet seem to have been able to create a democratic model of amplifier design.
And very few innovations seem to have been presented, except for the necessary exceptions, while schemes from decades ago are still being used.
Those schemes have their very high dignity otherwise they would not be used, but they are also a measure of the damage that exasperated and unenlightened objectivism brings to the construction of cages.
For fear of damaging their image and above all for fear of being laughed at.
The cage of objectivism is created by the objectivists themselves who, among other things, in some cases completely ignore human physiology.
I have a particular admiration for engineers, of any specialization, not only in electronics, but if wisdom and perseverance in studies are not freed from imagination and creativity, unfortunately they lose part of their importance.
And if one of their discoveries, for example, cannot reach the audience of listeners because the ABX tests do not work by their very nature and no one notices it, then the cage also becomes golden.
I think I've already answered this somewhat.
No.
I think I answered this too, somehow.
Here too you got whistles for flasks.
The price of an amplifier matters!
If a power amp has to cost $400,000 per mono pair to sound "good" which I doubt as much as anything else man-made, then it's not technological progress, it's technological barbarism and we are all experiencing an Audio that is still at Paleolithic.
If you know, what I know.
I didn't say they were the same, you keep taking me literally to no avail.
I said they're built the same way: PCBs, transistors, diodes, and a handful of components and a chassis.
What do you think an amplifier buyer gets, a design philosophy?
Me only?
Are you sure? 🙂
However, I agree, I said exactly the same thing as you about measurements.
Marketing and reproduction quality certainly have something to do with it!
How else do you think anyone would be able to sell a $12,000 preamp?
You cannot escape marketing in any way.
For this reason he should be respected and not ridiculously demonized.
Otherwise it's your that is philosophy.
It's not a flaw just as it's not an advantage, it's simply a fact.
And, again, I wasn't talking about what you played.
Try buying an $800,000 system and then let me know what you think to want coming out of those speakers. 😉
This is what I was talking about, a more than justified expectation in relation to how expensive one has purchased, mine was certainly not an apology for perfection.
Nothing like that at all!
All the above in my opinion and with all due respect, of course. 🙂
Hi,
After re-reading your appreciated comment which perhaps I had misunderstood the first time, and since I believe in the following, I'm sincerely interested in your opinion about the fact that the senses (hearing included) work one at a time
https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2019/05/mingling-senses
and whether in your opinion this fact may or may not matter related to any type of critical listening and/or any kind of serious test, just as I believe.
After this, I would also like it if you could do a little test for me just for fun.
The next time you watch a movie on TV, try turning off the sound and continue watching the movie carefully.
If you notice anything of anything please tell me, if you want.
Thank you so much in advance! 🙂
Back to the topic, I actually don't know the real thing, but let's assume that the objectivists are right and therefore that the listening opinions of the subjectivists are not acceptable for knowing how an amplifier sounds.
The objectivist states: no two brains are the same.
The objectivist goes further: if there are no two equal brains then there are not even two equal perceptions of the same sound.
Since I guess this premise appears valid, the objectivist uses what seems a perfect logic to mock anyone who tries to challenge that statement.
If all of the above is true, the first consequence of this truth is that nobody is able to tell how an amplifier sounds, neither from measurements nor from listening.
So what's the real point here?
The objectivist states: no two brains are the same.
The objectivist goes further: if there are no two equal brains then there are not even two equal perceptions of the same sound.
Since I guess this premise appears valid, the objectivist uses what seems a perfect logic to mock anyone who tries to challenge that statement.
If all of the above is true, the first consequence of this truth is that nobody is able to tell how an amplifier sounds, neither from measurements nor from listening.
So what's the real point here?
An amplifier will sound different to the same person in different rooms. They will also sound different to the same person if they are isolated from seismic type vibrations. Amplifiers also sound different according to time of day and day of week. Different tubes sound different. Different speaker cables sound different. Amplifier designers all have different concepts of the sound they are trying to achieve. When you listen to a system you’re listening to the system, the fuses, the cables, not only the amplifier. Two people with the same listening skill will hear/perceive the sound the same. It’s a subjectivist’s game, there are way too many variables to get all hung up on measurements.
Last edited:
This is not what this objectivist vs. subjectivist is about. What objectivists are claiming is that subjective listening result is subjective (i.e. applies to that subject), not that it is wrong or unacceptable. So if somebody claims that something sounds better that claim should not be generalized to apply to others. Unfortunately this forum has people who have the need to shove their subjective listening results down other people's throats.
A fundamental problem is that the "sight measurements" and "hearing measurements" are not calibrated to each other. If I develop audio amplifiers, i.e. amplifiers for listening to music, then hearing is decisive.
Furthermore, it should be noted that we always judge only in comparison. And always within a highly complex context, as mentioned above.
Furthermore, it should be noted that we always judge only in comparison. And always within a highly complex context, as mentioned above.
The amplifier is the same, your perception (mood, physiological changes etc), and the sound in the room (speaker / room interaction) is what changes in the cases you refer to, excluding the ones which won't make any difference whatsoever unless there are faults (fuses, cables...). But two people will never hear/perceive the same - if you can even figure out how to tell. We're all different.
Fortunately there are no regular earthquakes here...
But given a lot of that can be called subjective, I guess we'll just have to disagree!
You speak like this because today is Sunday... 🙂
All kidding aside, you spoke in an enlightened way, but not all objectivists behave objectively the same way.
However, if despite everything, weapons were laid down and a convinced and lasting armistice was reached I'm happy to say that it seems a great success.
And this post should be considered as a my further first step. 😉
Weapons? Armistice? What on earth are you talking about? It is normal that people disagree. And why would anybody need to agree with you? I'm quite sure that I disagree with you on this topic.
Weapons and armistice were metaphors, but it seems It's too difficult for some to realize and we should only talk as compiling the code of a firmware.
It's not just the what that matters, but also the how.
Never said or even thought such an enormity.
Who cares?
Agreement or disagreement, nothing changes at all.
Of course they were metaphors but you seem to take this far too emotionally. You are asking others to calm down but it is you who should calm down.
As far as I see you have already ended up in several ignore lists in this thread. So better start the "how" with yourself.
It seems like you never noticed that you yourself might be on more than one Ignore list, so what is your real point?
Also, it seems like you never noticed that I reply just as I reply to mock and rudeness only.
If you ever looked it up, you wouldn't find a single post of mine where you can contradict what I'm saying.
Furthermore, I've seen much, much worse around, unless one has not only selective listening, but also selective vision.
You can say almost what you want, but not how you want: it's a matter of Netiquette.
I'm very calm, even when other people's rudeness makes me less calm.
Maybe you should start by reading that Wiki-page:
"And never be arrogant or self-righteous about it. Just as it's a law of nature that spelling flames always contain spelling errors, notes pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette."
Out of curiosity, how did you see it?
P. S.: I've always found it humiliating to use the Ignore list, but you "convinced" me to start using it.
Therefore JFYI I'll not continue this useless controversy any further. 😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.