Also worth bearing in mind, you uneducated swine, that there is no end.......
No, I don't think that was the meaning. It is probably similar thing trying to develop expertise at anything. One book can't take someone from novice to expert. Not two books either.
You are a smart guy. Why play dumb when you know that wasn't what it meant at all. You are playing debating games just to screw around with somebody, is what it looks like at times.
At other times you are serious and seem like a decent guy. Mostly when you are sincere about teaching or serious about learning.
It might be questionable who is insulting whom, as this is a matter of a personal feeling.
Re boring - you know, for some of us it may be boring to read in circles how feedback is bad, sounds bad etc. To the later, sound is a matter of personal taste as well. OK. But just saying that feedback is bad and a lot of feedback is bad without any proof - don't you think it is boring? Especially if some of us know very well that it is not true (that feedback is bad) and have enough proof (= measurements). Measurements on amplifiers designed by highly regarded designers who declare that feedback is bad, however the result proves his design wrong. An example was shown here, few months ago. The problem is that there many "opinions". Opinions without proof, with no support in reality = boring. At least to some of us.
Last edited:
I think you know the above is a distortion. If I have other things I want to do then I will do what is a priority to me. Syn08 mostly is playing debating games on this issue, as are you. Why give him a test plan when most likely he will just use it for ridicule fodder? If there are things in it he doesn't understand the reason for, do you think he will ask with the intent of learning, or intentionally misinterpret to go on the attack?
He is well educated in the subject, contrary to many other participants.
To paraphrase your post, why to give experiment results and measurements to some who will use it for ridicule fodder? Are they less time consuming than a test plan? And you are able to predict a reaction to the test plan?
Each time somebody does (for example) a foobar ABX comparison (with a null result), one or more proponents are jumping up and down, blaming anything from the ABX procedure itself to a moonshine effect bias that was not taken into account.
I just want to see a blind test procedure, for a test case of your convenience, that would address the simplest case of "do A and B sound different"? Numerous tests were described by forum members over the time (and I would recall SY and PMA) but none got the "seal of approval". There was always something to grumble about. I'm not interested in identifying errors in others procedures, I just want to see a positive contribution to the matter.
I know it's a lot to ask, and I may at this point quote again Upton Sinclair.
You seem like one of the level headed objectivists....Fill me in here.
If i prefer the sound of something that doesn’t measure well, and find that others agree.....that means we are wrong?
I really think there’s a disconnect between sound reproduction and perception.
Perfect (or close to perfect) measurements do not seem to close the gap......it just gives a starting place for tweaking😀
Nope - just means you like it, which is great.
As long you don't try and tell someone else it's objectively better, or that your subjective view (which is yours and you are of course fully entitled to!) is somehow "right" then all is well!
(and to be clear, I'm not saying that *you* have, but it has been known by some others...)
People might misunderstand it, but they will mostly be people who already don't understand feedback. For the sake of clarity, I do not use the term 're-entrant distortion' to mean or imply that anything is going round in a loop. I simply mean that something comes out and goes back in at the same time, sometimes in the same place.PMA said:
You just fed the trolls. You understand what you mean, but they don't.Tournesol said:
If you genuinely know different then it was not good enough.mountainman bob said:
Saying that you misunderstood what we were saying was the best explanation I could come up with when you said that we were saying something which was quite different from what we were saying. How else would you explain it?
The key word is "prefer". You are expressing a preference, so you cannot be either right or wrong. If others agree then that means they have a similar preference. This tells us nothing whatsoever about faithful sound reproduction.mountainman bob said:
A perfect system will never satisfy someone who prefers a certain type of imperfection. There are people on here who happilly admit that their own system sounds 'better' than live music; this is clear evidence that hi-fi is not for everyone.
Yes, it means we are wrong. You cannot be wrong. I hope you got the difference.
It would make life easier if I could figure out how to do the multiple quote thing!
The part where I said ‘in my experience’ and you said ‘No’ ! 😀
I kinda like it where everyone can be right, except for that whole colored wire thing......I really think someone has to be wrong there.😀
Some time ago in this very thread I reported a blind procedure to test oneself. All it takes is scrambling what is being listened to until you have no idea which sample is which. Its much like shuffling cards, shuffling them until they they are thoroughly mixed, then shuffle some more. Once there is no way you can know what you are listening to, then go ahead and test without looking. Learn from mistakes with instant feedback (which research shows is best for learning), and practice until perfect while blind. The procedure described above meets the technical definition of double blind so long as one, in the capacity of experimenter and in the capacity of test subject, has no idea which file is being listened to.
I’m getting a better handle on it now....has there ever been a study done to see if the general public prefers ‘perfect accuracy’ or different levels of ‘imperfection’ in music reproduction?
Inevitably the question then becomes accurate to what? As a rule it's not usually a good idea to ask what the general public prefers (our PMs 😉)
I do not intend to argue, but reading your posts, I am quite sure you do not know what are the contemporary measurement possibilities and what they are able to cover. Popular magazines and forum discussion would not teach you, they will only consume your time.
Studies in the 1950s (?) showed that some people prefer a little added low order distortion and many people prefer a somewhat limited frequency range. It is also the case that most people prefer music genres which emphasise the extremes of the frquency spectrum. These experiments can be criticised on all sorts of grounds yet they curiously seem in harmony with anecdotes of today.mountainman bob said:
Accurate to the source of course, meaning played back on a system capable of reproducing only what it is fed. (isn’t that what is meant by measuring accurate?)
....yes the general public does become problematic.
If a non-audiophile "general public" comes to visit me, they do not care and do not recognize if I changed some components since the last visit, except for speakers.
If an audiophile comes, he concentrates to cables, wiring, power cords, but often could not tell if I turned off the tweeter.
Sometimes a musician from Czech Philharmonic Orchestra comes to visit me, and he is able to hear the sounds or imperfections in the recording that I am not able to hear. Not surprisingly, he prefers the amplifiers with lowest distortion and highest S/N, though he was not told what he listens to. This is the opinion that is important to me. Contrary to the crowd of audiophiles who can hear myrtle wooden blocks below speaker cables.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.