Andre, many decades ago, all watches were mechanical. Thus, they were subject to many variations in timekeeping, such as temperature, age, mechanical position, etc. Rolex, etc made fine watches, at first to be both reliable and consistent timekeepers. They also added, just like high end audio does today, a certain sense of classiness to the watch. Still, watches even made 30 years ago were usually not too accurate. In fact, I ALWAYS found myself waiting for my train in Switzerland, BECAUSE my OMEGA 'Seamaster' always ran fast and got me to the station before I wanted to be there in 1974. I complained to OMEGA. No real results. Later, I had an American jeweler adjust it to accurate time. It ran consistently 9 seconds a day fast. Why? Any ideas out there?
Conrad Hoffman said:
My feeling is to get the most accurate sound you need a higher damping factor amplifier and more sensitive speakers or else the speakers "play itself".
john curl said:
Agreed, it's as easy as that, the only problem seems to me is that the deaf try to convince the hearing not to hear. 😀
john curl said:
It's not the wathches fault, it's proof that the days are getting shorter and shorter. 🙂
JCs post inverviened between between rdfs (#597) and my responce (#599) and suggests why that probelm exists. People who continuously report anecdotal evidence with supreme confidence that it is fact are bound to elicit unreasoned responces from a good fraction of those who are aligned with the scientific method but have an strong emotional bias towards their position. All subjectivists have to do is make claims – good science is a lot harder to achieve – that cant help but be a bit galling to some...though not as galling as rejecting good science because it does not fit one's preconceptions.
Deafness? Is this the preferred argument those with auditory hallucinations use to try to convince others that their fantasies are real?Andre Visser said:
abzug said:
Seems like you need glasses too, look closely for the smiley at the end of my sentence.
I missed that, but since my point wasn't simply directed at the post I was replying to but was more general, it's still valid.
abzug said:
I still can't figure who you are to call others that can hear clear differences between amplifiers to be hallucinating.
john curl said:
I'm not surprised that you defend a practise that has supported a lifestyle that has encouraged the development of a discriminating taste in exotic brandies. Keep digging.
What kind of person revels in a rave review when it's subjective? Only a cynic or a fool.
Andre Visser said:
Didn't you ever consider that you MIGHT be hallucinating? Until you ask a lot of people, or submit to double blind tests, you can't be sure.
Who I am? Talk about an ad hominem fallacy 🙄Andre Visser said:
I don't think that's fair. Usually interest is all it takes and finances may be stretched in order to accommodate it--some people would spend a much larger fraction of one's resources than the average person in order to pursue something about which they are passionate (I know I do--that's why I'm 70K in debt). Moreover, he made it clear that this is not a common thing and in a further post mentioned $25/bottle as more reasonable.
Again, the issue is not cost, it's whether there's actually a sonically detectable difference. In the case of the brandy, one can tell the difference blind, then it gets down to the cost and whether it's worth it.
But I'd like to see someone tell the Blowtorch from a B&K in a level-matched controlled test. With that in hand, all the talk about hallucinations goes away.
But I'd like to see someone tell the Blowtorch from a B&K in a level-matched controlled test. With that in hand, all the talk about hallucinations goes away.
Much of this thread has been interesting, but I've stayed out since it seems that I need to write a novel-length post, or say nothing at all. However, I like abzug's quote here:
IMHO this is one of the key stumbling points in making any 'progress' in this issue. Using the term 'listener bias' seems to be taken as an insult or suggestion of failing by a whole lot of people. I'm not sure I fully understand this. In my view, the entire process of musical enjoyment is basically dependent on the same mechanisms that lead to listener bias - involuntary interpretation of the 'raw' auditory stimulus by our psychological/emotional systems. These systems are of course a product of both innate characteristics AND our life/listening experiences.
In the context of blind testing, it's important to note that such testing doesn't remove all 'bias' - it only removes *differential* bias based on specific knowledge of the units under test.
On a personal note, it also illustrates why I care about this less than I used to. If the ultimate experience is due to both the stimulus and our interpretation, why overly sweat getting the stimulus 'perfect', since improving the 'interpretation' part is also viable. i.e. *create* bias by using unusual/interesting approaches that improve your engagement in the overall process, or by improving your listening environment to be more relaxing/formal/ritualistic etc. Lots of mileage to be gotten out of appreciating the holistic experience of the hobby rather than obsessing over whether the system is flawless.
[as an aside, I fully believe this is what is frequently happening with people doing constant tweaks, cable swaps etc, they just don't see it in quite the same light]
abzug said:
IMHO this is one of the key stumbling points in making any 'progress' in this issue. Using the term 'listener bias' seems to be taken as an insult or suggestion of failing by a whole lot of people. I'm not sure I fully understand this. In my view, the entire process of musical enjoyment is basically dependent on the same mechanisms that lead to listener bias - involuntary interpretation of the 'raw' auditory stimulus by our psychological/emotional systems. These systems are of course a product of both innate characteristics AND our life/listening experiences.
In the context of blind testing, it's important to note that such testing doesn't remove all 'bias' - it only removes *differential* bias based on specific knowledge of the units under test.
On a personal note, it also illustrates why I care about this less than I used to. If the ultimate experience is due to both the stimulus and our interpretation, why overly sweat getting the stimulus 'perfect', since improving the 'interpretation' part is also viable. i.e. *create* bias by using unusual/interesting approaches that improve your engagement in the overall process, or by improving your listening environment to be more relaxing/formal/ritualistic etc. Lots of mileage to be gotten out of appreciating the holistic experience of the hobby rather than obsessing over whether the system is flawless.
[as an aside, I fully believe this is what is frequently happening with people doing constant tweaks, cable swaps etc, they just don't see it in quite the same light]
I remember a jazz musician explain that when he and his jazz group were at their best and in contact with the audience music was like magic
Its quite funny that the musician himself mentions magic when he knows it takes a lot of hard work, years of study and technical skills
Its the same thing with amp designing...to make a good amp takes lots of hard earned skills...but to make an outstanding amp you will also need that magical touch
With lots of training you may devellop skills that will give you the exstra magical touch...at least it will look that way to those who dont know
Who knows, maybe training is not just about technical skills
Its quite funny that the musician himself mentions magic when he knows it takes a lot of hard work, years of study and technical skills
Its the same thing with amp designing...to make a good amp takes lots of hard earned skills...but to make an outstanding amp you will also need that magical touch
With lots of training you may devellop skills that will give you the exstra magical touch...at least it will look that way to those who dont know
Who knows, maybe training is not just about technical skills
- Status
- Not open for further replies.