Not necessarily, only you can answer that question. In the context of the way you used it previously, in reference to the submission by John Curl it raises doubts that it was honest. If we consider "reasonable" as meaning something like "on average" to most people, do you believe that the question was reasonable for John Curl to respond in some form of short and effective way. Your question in the context used, seems would require a response equal to that of "the meaning of life".
The question becomes; Where you expecting a reasonable response from John Curl or making a statement? The dishonesty comes from disguising statements in taking the form of a question.
If 90% of people say a new product is ‘better’ than its predecessor there’s a pretty good chance it might be better for me too, most of the time the descriptions will let you know if it’s relevant to your vision of better.
If only 1 out of 10 say it’s better then it might give pause.
Now the big question would be.....is there deception at large? I think it’s fairly easy to decipher a line of crap if you take the time to educate yourself on whatever the subject might be.
Opinions are always welcome in my book.
If only 1 out of 10 say it’s better then it might give pause.
Now the big question would be.....is there deception at large? I think it’s fairly easy to decipher a line of crap if you take the time to educate yourself on whatever the subject might be.
Opinions are always welcome in my book.
Hard to say, I was hoping for a reasonable response from him. If I was making a statement it would have been, I don't consider "better" as meaningful, but I've said that a number of times before quite openly, that appears to be what you read into my question, not unreasonably.
Opinions are fine, I find "better" too broad and wooly a descriptor of the sound differences and it only means better in the sense that the person is using to mean they prefer it, not very useful to others necessarily because they have to make assumptions about someone elses preferences.
I take it that was in response to what I said most recently about how Jam listens. Also, the fact that I listen differently.
If so, maybe there is some more I could say (or maybe not) to possibly reduce some of the confusion that has resulted from forum members only seeing what we do through the keyhole of a few forum posts about how people report hearing the same things. You never get complete specifics of what is said or observed. Instead of asking questions and or holding off forming opinions when data is lacking, you often seem to jump to the worst possible conclusions (and you often give the worst possible examples as objections).
Last edited:
If people say it's simply 'better' I want to know why it's better. Not just that it is better.
Better for 90% of people might not actually be better for me in terms of what something can do.
Yah, that was covered with “most of the time the descriptions will let you know if it’s relevant to your vision of better.”
It’s all tools of deduction, just as relevant as measurements to me.....I don’t just stop at ASR though I scour the net looking for every opinion I can find before making a audio related purchase.
Of course just ‘better’ with no context means little......it’s usually accompanied by some explanation why.
It’s all tools of deduction, just as relevant as measurements to me.....I don’t just stop at ASR though I scour the net looking for every opinion I can find before making a audio related purchase.
Of course just ‘better’ with no context means little......it’s usually accompanied by some explanation why.
Last edited:
We have a small dog and are often amused (and joke about) how he naturally seeks out and finds anything "a little bit better". This can include a piece of cardboard he lays upon instead of just the boards of a sunny deck, and especially anything other than his own food.
To him, better means anything that makes his sense perceptions distinguish a superior situation; Our food is better than his, a pile of clothes is better than the carpet, the raised back of a chair is better than the floor level (he's short...), my leg is better than the sofa cushion to place his head upon.
To me, FR speakers sound better than the ordinary designs with a crossover that I've been exposed to. The difference may be as much as the piece of cardboard is to our dog, but the preference due to however minuscule the perception may be is there - and enough to be acted upon. I think the acted upon is the important part; "better" is a sense perception that's enough to motivate one to take a consequent action - after experiencing it.
To him, better means anything that makes his sense perceptions distinguish a superior situation; Our food is better than his, a pile of clothes is better than the carpet, the raised back of a chair is better than the floor level (he's short...), my leg is better than the sofa cushion to place his head upon.
To me, FR speakers sound better than the ordinary designs with a crossover that I've been exposed to. The difference may be as much as the piece of cardboard is to our dog, but the preference due to however minuscule the perception may be is there - and enough to be acted upon. I think the acted upon is the important part; "better" is a sense perception that's enough to motivate one to take a consequent action - after experiencing it.
Last edited:
You just came pretty close to describing how many audiophiles listen, its only a subset of them though.
However, it is the subset that produces the 'reformed audiophile' types we see around here who want to warn everyone not to buy expensive junk like they once did. Problem with those people is that they still haven't learned, they just go from one extreme to another.
There’s a pop radio station I listen to sometimes.....it has a ‘better’ sound than even ones twice as close. Back a ways we were talking about subaudible studies/applications in music reproduction (You know......the one I couldn’t find again!) anyways in it they discussed adding certain white noise to mask unwanted frequencies so that the focus is on the music content. It actually tracked the content adjusting on the fly......I wonder if it’s something like that? YouTube has a similar ethereal sound at medium volumes but crank it up and it soon becomes obvious it’s not clean.
So (like the dog) I’m thinking people are drawn to better without much thought.....although you’d think there’s more effort to avoid better here than to let it happen!
So (like the dog) I’m thinking people are drawn to better without much thought.....although you’d think there’s more effort to avoid better here than to let it happen!
Then why post them? A long while age you mentioned that you do most of your listening with a selected group of friends who (I don't remember the exact words) tend to hear the same things as you and that you have learned to trust their impressions. I would think any post about listening would put the nature of the participants up front.
Names and biographies are not needed. I have described them as trusted skilled listeners. Each has been blind tested. That is about as much as you will find out now. If someone had taken the opportunity to visit before COVID-19 then it would have been quite clear to that person how we do it and how reliable it is or it isn't. Didn't happen, so here we are.
The reason I post listening impressions is because some people find them useful, others make it quite obvious they don't.
Last edited:
Sorry if that's how you perceived my comment. 😉
BTW, what is the smallest degree of phase shift or more accurately time difference that you (or anyone else) can perceive as a shift in image or responsible for "smearing"?