|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 24, 2016 10:19:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 24, 2016 12:21:01 GMT -5
What some subjectivists get wrong: - When the objective data clearly shows that they actually are *not* being objectivists, they *still* keep pretending to be objectivists, and then they just call you a *bleep* in public for having pointed that out.
|
|
|
|
Post by trinhsman on Mar 24, 2016 13:09:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Mar 24, 2016 13:11:15 GMT -5
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Mar 24, 2016 13:56:03 GMT -5
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBADYBALYBLAH.
Here is the way I see this. We as humans for some reason refuse to trust our own self. So what I mean by that is I have system XYZ. To me I think it sounds great I can hear the sound I have in my head.
Now, I read that product X is not that good because of this or that. I think WOW, maybe there is better and I did not spend that much on it so the one four times the price surly is four times better.
Then we brain wash our self's in to believing we have to spend big money or it is not as good. I have heard it on here that you have to spend at least $600.00 on a sub to get a good one. OK, I didn't spend that much and I LIKE mine. Why? MY EARS tell me I like it.
Now do I think every one hears something different. I sure do. But it is not about anyone else in my home it is all about me. So what is right for one does not mean it is right for all.
I also think we as humans are programed in the higher the price the better it is. Or is it the better bragging rights we have? I see it with wine every day. I have "wine enthusiast" that can not tell the difference between a Stag leaps Cask 23, Opus one or a twenty dollar bottle of fourteen hands High end Vodkas are the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 24, 2016 14:14:37 GMT -5
A very good read, indeed. The things that struck me the most from the article are in the "things that objectivists get wrong:"
A dogma-based assertion that all aspects of human hearing are known
A dogma-based assertion that we are measuring everything we need to measure in order to fully characterize an audio system
I've heard those exact things here on the Lounge again and again (and again). I disagree with them, and the fact that Mr. Stoddard (the Schiit guy) agrees with me neither reinforces nor nullifies my disagreement. I came to those conclusions independently and I stand by them. NOT all aspects of human hearing are known - some have their own "built in" sensitivities and every one of us has her/his own "hearing curve." This influences how we hear, period.
The second issue is more controversial. Are we measuring everything we need to measure in order to fully characterize an audio system (emphasis mine). I'm convinced that we are NOT. Others contend that such measurements are a done deal - nothing else here (now move on along...). My example is one that we all experience - you can be walking down a city street and hear music from a block over. Despite all the background & traffic noise, you know immediately if it's live or a recording - no confusion - no doubt. You know instantly. Where is the measure of THAT? What aren't we measuring that lets us know when music is recorded (and when it's not)?
Now I'm not going to change any minds here, and I don't claim to be trying. I'm only stating my position and leaving you to your own.
Cheers - Boom
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2016 14:45:27 GMT -5
A very good read, indeed. The things that struck me the most from the article are in the "things that objectivists get wrong:" A dogma-based assertion that all aspects of human hearing are known A dogma-based assertion that we are measuring everything we need to measure in order to fully characterize an audio system I've heard those exact things here on the Lounge again and again (and again). I disagree with them, and the fact that Mr. Stoddard (the Schiit guy) agrees with me neither reinforces nor nullifies my disagreement. I came to those conclusions independently and I stand by them. NOT all aspects of human hearing are known - some have their own "built in" sensitivities and every one of us has her/his own "hearing curve." This influences how we hear, period. The second issue is more controversial. Are we measuring everything we need to measure in order to fully characterize an audio system (emphasis mine). I'm convinced that we are NOT. Others contend that such measurements are a done deal - nothing else here (now move on along...). My example is one that we all experience - you can be walking down a city street and hear music from a block over. Despite all the background & traffic noise, you know immediately if it's live or a recording - no confusion - no doubt. You know instantly. Where is the measure of THAT? What aren't we measuring that lets us know when music is recorded (and when it's not)? Now I'm not going to change any minds here, and I don't claim to be trying. I'm only stating my position and leaving you to your own. Cheers - Boom I think the problem is that even if we have the instruments to measure....we aren't intepreting enough. For instance somebody who says this is the frequency output at this point in time or whatever can't easily point to it and describe it related to all that the ear hears. How does it sound EXACTLY? How does the measurement correlate to what you hear. For instance we can say oh this is the harmonic of the saxophone. But we can't say...how it sounds in relation to the entire sound vs a slightly different harmonic very specifically. Or even if we can, can we describe how it would sound when it is recorded in a cathedral. Drawing interpretations of subjective hearing from measurements is very complex. We can do some of it but we cannot do all of it. For instance we can say oh the treble is tipped up and things would sound bright. But you cannot describe the exact sound in that particular song. We would subjectively say oh it sounds like the treble is too tipped up or too bright. But that doesn't actually describe all that we hear to make us come to the conclusion. It is a generic summary. The soundstage we hear is very complex. Or if we say the trumpet was a bit clearer on a different electronic we can't say exactly in which way even if we use a bunch of descriptors. I don't think it's beyond our capabiltiies to measure. But measuring everything and then intepreting it in to a cohesive picture is a lot harder. |
|
|
|
Post by Cogito on Mar 24, 2016 19:05:54 GMT -5
What you are hearing is all just in your head, an illusion. How could you possibly takes yourselves so seriously?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 24, 2016 20:15:08 GMT -5
Right back to the real question. Are we ever happy, done or satisfied?? With anything?? 
There is always bigger, better, more expensive, whatever............ We may have stopped where we are but for most of us, there is always that "what if??"  Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Mar 24, 2016 20:40:09 GMT -5
Right back to the real question. Are we ever happy, done or satisfied?? With anything??
There is always bigger, better, more expensive, whatever............ We may have stopped where we are but for most of us, there is always that "what if??" Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff.
 |
|
|
|
Post by DavidR on Mar 24, 2016 20:43:33 GMT -5
I have found that the sofa makes the biggest difference.......................................................................
|
|
guitarforlife
Sensei
Just another busy day in Northern Wisconsin.
Posts: 947
|
Post by guitarforlife on Mar 24, 2016 21:02:24 GMT -5
Right back to the real question. Are we ever happy, done or satisfied?? With anything??
There is always bigger, better, more expensive, whatever............ We may have stopped where we are but for most of us, there is always that "what if??" Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff. UMMMM, You have just begun a whole new sonic adventure starting Friday I believe. You my friend are no way no how done. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 24, 2016 21:43:19 GMT -5
Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff. UMMMM, You have just begun a whole new sonic adventure starting Friday I believe. You my friend are no way no how done. Well actually that's just a blanket statement I use after every time I make a new purchase.  |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2016 21:43:49 GMT -5
What you are hearing is all just in your head, an illusion. How could you possibly takes yourselves so seriously? I don't think it needs to be like that. Here's the thing...what we hear is the only thing that matters. So right now the reality is that we can't measure or intepret what we hear in terms of pereption. Just because our perception is biased doesn't mean that we A. THROW IT OUT AND IGNORE IT. B. IGNORE THAT IT's BIASED. Yes it is biased. But it doesn't negate it as eing able to do something that no other tool can do. Build and intepret an accurate sopundstage as it relates to us. Because it is us. We are not a microphone. We are not distortion measurements. We are what we perceive. C. Different people can percieve differently. (subjectivity). And differnet people can perceive very minute things similarly. But we still can't IGNORE this amazing tool that we have. it is the best most sophisticatred device that we have...which also has flaws. We have to acknowledge both the flaws and the sophistication and accept the limitaitons of our instruments. Just because it's biased doesn't mean that we ignore its ability to create a SONDSTAGE. An auditory pciture. This stuff is improtant. That's how we percieve and that's the point of speakers. Our best stuff can't create anything NEAR this accurate. It's not even knocking on the door. Even with limited capabilities, the perception of audio cannot be ginored or just relegated to it is biased and therefore must be ignored. That's like ignoring an insturment who is able to measure and intepret the dclosest to what matters by a huge order of magnitude at least in perception ....and going with a method which can't even get clsoe to equating perception. But this is the important thing. We dismiss it. We say oh it's subjective. It's impossible. But that's the whole point. If we can't get there it's useless imo. Everything else is conejcture in terms of what matters - what we hear. We are not reproducing reality with our equipment. Maybe it's the stereo format that's flawed. Maybe it's the equipment. The point is that we are not at the capability to at the very least interpret our measurements accurately. We ignore the height dimension. We ignore surround reproduction. Even in surround sound reproduction most of it is simply engineers injecting something interesting...not necesarily accurate in its recording. We don't have it yet. This similarly to what monkumonku had in the thread about 70's audio magazines. We have capabilities well beyond them. But you didn't really hear them talking about the limitaitons of their tech. It was the best they had. But doing so they ignored power limitations in amp power on top of a more stuff. Though they acknowledged fidelity limtaitions, they didn't really focus on its limitations These were serious problems that were brushed aside for what we did have. We do the same thing now. I think we need to always measure how far away from reality we are. That way we don't get sucked up in the illusion that we have reproduced it sufficiently. |
|
|
|
Post by copperpipe on Mar 25, 2016 10:47:19 GMT -5
Right back to the real question. Are we ever happy, done or satisfied?? With anything??
There is always bigger, better, more expensive, whatever............ We may have stopped where we are but for most of us, there is always that "what if??" Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff. How do you like the Sierra's? I thought you running HSU bookshelfs...?  |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Mar 25, 2016 11:21:27 GMT -5
Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff. How do you like the Sierra's? I thought you running HSU bookshelfs...? No, the HSU's were his previous last speakers ever. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Mar 25, 2016 12:26:01 GMT -5
Jason Stoddard...the Jason Stoddard whose Asgard amp was frying peoples' headphones with too much DC current?! The one who then proceeded to cover up the issue and shoot the messenger?! I hope he has mellowed out.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 25, 2016 12:27:35 GMT -5
Speak for yourself. I'm totally satisfied and done with buying stuff. How do you like the Sierra's? I thought you running HSU bookshelfs...? As Geebo said, the Hsu's were my last final speakers before I replaced them with the current last and final speakers.  I have to say the Sierras are darn good and may very well be the last speakers I get. The RAAL tweeters are amazing - very detailed but not at all fatiguing. Of all the speakers I've had, I like these the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Mar 26, 2016 11:42:44 GMT -5
I have found that the sofa makes the biggest difference....................................................................... Close but no cigar - It's who's on the sofa with you that makes the biggest difference!  |
|
