Hi Joshua_G,
When you make a statement which you hold as true, others who have a more scientific background are looking to see if your "experiment" was properly conducted. If you have more than one uncontrolled variable, it's a bad test. When a statement is made, the person making that statement is expected to engage in "peer review". This allows errors to be found. If the statement stands up, then it is more likely to be accepted by others.
What you are saying is fine for you, but it is indefensible. You do not participate in the "peer review" process very well from your posts I've read. If you can not accept other people's viewpoints freely, then you are exercising a double standard. You can not expect anyone to believe what you are saying if you refuse to accept information that might make your listening experiments valid.
Now, sadly, you are debating with members who have far more experience in audio than you do. Many here design equipment and also listen to it. Most have a great deal more experience in audio than any audiophile does.
If you disagree with the methods and people, perhaps you should just keep it to yourself. There is no way you will ever bend, and most members are not going to embrace ideas on faith alone. So all that ends up happening is a ruckus that ruins the flow of a thread. Besides, you would get far more information out of a given thread if you just read and consider what is being said. If you want to comment about something you disagree on, then comment and drop it.
Threads are free for everyone to enjoy and learn from. No one has the right to troll for their own personal amusement.
-Chris
When you make a statement which you hold as true, others who have a more scientific background are looking to see if your "experiment" was properly conducted. If you have more than one uncontrolled variable, it's a bad test. When a statement is made, the person making that statement is expected to engage in "peer review". This allows errors to be found. If the statement stands up, then it is more likely to be accepted by others.
What you are saying is fine for you, but it is indefensible. You do not participate in the "peer review" process very well from your posts I've read. If you can not accept other people's viewpoints freely, then you are exercising a double standard. You can not expect anyone to believe what you are saying if you refuse to accept information that might make your listening experiments valid.
Now, sadly, you are debating with members who have far more experience in audio than you do. Many here design equipment and also listen to it. Most have a great deal more experience in audio than any audiophile does.
If you disagree with the methods and people, perhaps you should just keep it to yourself. There is no way you will ever bend, and most members are not going to embrace ideas on faith alone. So all that ends up happening is a ruckus that ruins the flow of a thread. Besides, you would get far more information out of a given thread if you just read and consider what is being said. If you want to comment about something you disagree on, then comment and drop it.
Threads are free for everyone to enjoy and learn from. No one has the right to troll for their own personal amusement.
-Chris
GRollins said:
No offense intended, people were throwing around the nano word again last week, sometimes with the inclusion of some quantum ballistic conduction. I apologize for mis-interpreting the context of that link. Though if you notice since the device is square law it actually would need quite a large bias to have low 2nd's. The efficiency is probably VERY low.
scott wurcer said:
Scott, I think this is somewhat at odds with your earlier post/report? You reported there that you could now detect a difference between MP3 and Redbook? Also that certain recordings did now sound "bad".
There was no mention of "transfers" or LF.
Suggest you try a HP filter on ur playback and see if it still sounds "bad"? <--- an aside.
The opportunity still remains for you to do some entirely capricious and "unscientific" things to your headphone playback chain for purely subjective reasons and see if perhaps you can be surprised (or not)... then see if you can measure a difference or not.
Just a simple suggestion.
GO CRAZY WILD, MAN!!
_-_-bear
I’m just curious, is this same Joshua_G?
I think it is, read all the posts.
Cheers
Stinius
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=31227
I think it is, read all the posts.
Cheers
Stinius
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=31227
Chris (anatech):
Your notes have been taken, up to the point you wrote: "No one has the right to troll for their own personal amusement." Trolling is probably in the eyes of some beholders.
Arthur (PHEONIX):
CD Player: Meridian G08, Pre-amp: Musical Fidelity A3.2 used as a pre-amp (not very good at that, I know, until I'll build my own); Power-amp: Bryston 5B ST; Loudspeakers: B&W N 803. The choice of components is limited by budget, more than anything else.
Stinius:
Yes, it was me.
Any ax to grind here?
Your notes have been taken, up to the point you wrote: "No one has the right to troll for their own personal amusement." Trolling is probably in the eyes of some beholders.
Arthur (PHEONIX):
CD Player: Meridian G08, Pre-amp: Musical Fidelity A3.2 used as a pre-amp (not very good at that, I know, until I'll build my own); Power-amp: Bryston 5B ST; Loudspeakers: B&W N 803. The choice of components is limited by budget, more than anything else.
Stinius:
Yes, it was me.
Any ax to grind here?
john curl said:
John,
after I've read last few pages I had a thought that people who are trying so hard to chase Joshua_G are very unlikely to be successful in the commercial audio field. In many ways what you are trying to say here in this thread is a good guide for a professional audio designer - not only in a technical sense. There is a difference between trying to please a measuring tool and trying to please a customer who wants a very different thing - just to enjoy the music. And it is a customer who buys the audio equipment and eventually pays our wages
. Cheers
Alex
x-pro said:after I've read last few pages I had a thought that people who are trying so hard to chase Joshua_G are very unlikely to be successful in the commercial audio field. In many ways what you are trying to say here in this thread is a good guide for a professional audio designer - not only in a technical sense. There is a difference between trying to please a measuring tool and trying to please a customer who wants a very different thing - just to enjoy the music. And it is a customer who buys the audio equipment and eventually pays our wages
While sharpening my pitchfork, I have noticed this voice of sanity, to which I 100% agree on all counts. This is exactly why I have always thought of the today's audio industry as a sad business.
This is, from where I sit, a sad reality... If this is the price to be successfull, then I'd rather keep using my pitchfork to throw bytes over and up to my satellites.
There's only one missing link: JC to agree on Alex statement and to accept there's nobody competing with his business here.
Peace.
john curl said:Just try to compete, I dare you!
Don't worry!
However, I can't stop noticing you are feeding exactly those guys who tommorow may use the dagger against you. Like it or not, but living with (rather than against) the pitchfork villains could actually be more productive for yourself...
Not at all, I am just a tired, old man who wants to impart some of his audio experience, before he fades away. I have been giving away info for decades. So what? Most people are like 'pearls before swine' and ignore my serious advice. Others, who might learn something, will take my place when I am here no more.
Speakers
As speakers have such a large effect on the overall sound of your equipment upstream, it would be interesting to me to know what kind of speakers you designers prefer, John C in particular, and did you select them because you like them or because they are revealing? Do you use the same system to enjoy music and test equipment changes?
I enjoy music on vandersteen 3a sigs but I have a pair of b&w bookshelf speakers that I would say are more revealing.
As speakers have such a large effect on the overall sound of your equipment upstream, it would be interesting to me to know what kind of speakers you designers prefer, John C in particular, and did you select them because you like them or because they are revealing? Do you use the same system to enjoy music and test equipment changes?
I enjoy music on vandersteen 3a sigs but I have a pair of b&w bookshelf speakers that I would say are more revealing.
I like this as an aid in understanding the subjective/objectivist
debate.
http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage
Click on the pdf link at the bottom.
What I got out of this is that the "noise floor" of the ear
is controlled by our beliefs.
Under certain circumstances (controlled by beliefs), the "noise floor" can be lowered and increase our ability to hear small details.
Under different circumstances the "noise floor" raises and we become insensitive to small details.
Mike
debate.
http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage
Click on the pdf link at the bottom.
What I got out of this is that the "noise floor" of the ear
is controlled by our beliefs.
Under certain circumstances (controlled by beliefs), the "noise floor" can be lowered and increase our ability to hear small details.
Under different circumstances the "noise floor" raises and we become insensitive to small details.
Mike
john curl said:
I have always thought that one of the greatest examples of a craftsman/artist giving to the next generation was Ansel Adam's series of books on photography. Unfortunately there are few analogs. A similar contribution by one or more of the current sages of audio would be a rare gift.
Hi John,
It's one thing to encourage people to explore and learn, quite another to work up some people to ignore the very things that you used to become successful. The knowledge and understanding you possess came from long hours behind test equipment and listening. Both together as complimentary tools. Yet these days you appear to shun the entire logical process behind effective testing. Even the art of knowing what to test for and setting up the "experiment" to form your learned method of determining which components to use is based in science. Without these methods, you would be thrashing away in the intellectual darkness that the "modder hacks" that destroy equipment live in.
You can go ahead and put forward the idea that a structured test is not effective, or that proper measurements are of no help. However, this is an untruth and you know it. What you do has become second nature to you and it works for you. Rest assured that the average non-technical person will not be capable of duplicating your results. I don't think you are doing anyone any favors by pretending that this is the way to audio nirvana. You certainly are not helping some people you have encouraged along the way to ignore testing with real test instruments.
The last time I looked, equipment that was "designed by ear" has the worst reliability record, and often do not sound as good as a "mid-fi" system. I know this from my own experience with many brands.
John, understand that I am by no means attacking you. Your message is being heard and thought about by many of us. It's the way the message is delivered sometimes that will meet with resistance. It also saddens me to see you take a "me and them" type stance. It clouds your delivery of information so that some of it is lost, tied up in issues that are more personal than factual from what I can see. There are really only a few people who want to take you to task just for the fun of it. Everyone else is just asking questions, and possibly in disagreement because what you may say counters experience that some others have had. Who is right probably depends more on the circumstances than the idea.
-Chris
Edit:
It's one thing to encourage people to explore and learn, quite another to work up some people to ignore the very things that you used to become successful. The knowledge and understanding you possess came from long hours behind test equipment and listening. Both together as complimentary tools. Yet these days you appear to shun the entire logical process behind effective testing. Even the art of knowing what to test for and setting up the "experiment" to form your learned method of determining which components to use is based in science. Without these methods, you would be thrashing away in the intellectual darkness that the "modder hacks" that destroy equipment live in.
You can go ahead and put forward the idea that a structured test is not effective, or that proper measurements are of no help. However, this is an untruth and you know it. What you do has become second nature to you and it works for you. Rest assured that the average non-technical person will not be capable of duplicating your results. I don't think you are doing anyone any favors by pretending that this is the way to audio nirvana. You certainly are not helping some people you have encouraged along the way to ignore testing with real test instruments.
The last time I looked, equipment that was "designed by ear" has the worst reliability record, and often do not sound as good as a "mid-fi" system. I know this from my own experience with many brands.
John, understand that I am by no means attacking you. Your message is being heard and thought about by many of us. It's the way the message is delivered sometimes that will meet with resistance. It also saddens me to see you take a "me and them" type stance. It clouds your delivery of information so that some of it is lost, tied up in issues that are more personal than factual from what I can see. There are really only a few people who want to take you to task just for the fun of it. Everyone else is just asking questions, and possibly in disagreement because what you may say counters experience that some others have had. Who is right probably depends more on the circumstances than the idea.
Well then, have some fun along the way to make the trip worthwhile for you. Stirring up the natives does not seem to be that much fun for you.
-Chris
Edit:
John, I've been thinking about this comment. You've made similar comments before and they have bothered me to some extent. In the context of the rest of your post, I find this very insulting to the other members here. You are showing a complete lack of respect and yet you expect respect? Am I reading your intent wrong? I sure hope so, because you are in the company of a lot of really smart people who are also more giving of their information than you are.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.