|
|
Post by yves on Jan 6, 2017 7:32:39 GMT -5
The inherent superiority of a stereo music playback system comes from the simple fact most music has been recorded with stereo playback in mind, albeit nothing can be perfect. But I like to listen to music in surround sound from time to time, especially if the surround mix was done by Steven Wilson. Compared to his surround mixes IMO the vast majority of surround mixes available on SACD are just gimmicks, butchered abominations when directly compared to their original stereo versions. Steven Wilson's The Raven That Refused To Sing (the original multichannel version, from the Blu-ray release) is fifty million times better than all of those fake surround features combined. As for timbre matching the center speaker to the front Left + Right speaker pair, the reality is that in a typical home listening environment they don't factually match in terms of the acoustic interactions with the physical boundaries of the room. I disagree that upmixing stereo music content to multichannel output sounds better, and, as far as multichannel music content is concerned, having a phantom center for playback is what more often than not sounds better than adding a real center speaker, again due to the acoustic aberrations of a room where the front speakers cannot be flush-mounted (inside the front wall). The aversity of room correction systems and EQ for playback of stereo music can easily be justified by those audiophiles who are very serious about physical room acoustic treatments. In a well treated room, using the EQ for music creates too many unwanted side effects for real music to still be able to sound like real music. That's a subjective reason for sure, but then, so is the ONLY reason why I listen to music in the first place. Placing rear surround speakers way up above ear level is too distracting for me even whilst listening to movie sound. Those height speaker locations should be reserved for proper use with Dolby Atmos / DTS:X / Auro-3D. And, as far as immersive 3D music reproduction goes, the DISCRETE height channels of Auro-3D paint circles around object based immersive 3D audio (Dolby Atmos). Literally. Well that wasn't the reason for me when I heard about it. The reason was .... I needed to buy an entirely new player just to hear it. What was the point? For instance my DVD player and PC dvd player played CD's. If I wanted to play anything other than CD's I downloaded it. My blu ray plays DVD's. Asking one to shell out mucho money for a box for one thing was silly. Then you have the price of the audio. You can find CD's for dirt cheap or lots of time free at your library. Online downloads are cheap. Why would I want to spend the money when I can get it way cheaper or free and the sound was perfectly acceptable? That was then. Now I have a good DAC. Why would I spend money on a box that plays it and pay money for the DAC in it (which doesn't play any of my computer files). Is it as good as my current DAC? I don't know. Don't care to find out. Do I want to spend time switching cables? Heck no. Can I use my DAC with it....no. Security? They can keep their security. I'll keep my gear that works with everything I own thanks. People that listen to music mostly care about two channels. People that watch movies would like surround sound. SACD is music ....and it's surround sound. There is the disconnect for me. Why would I want to buy a new box, new discs, new speakers, new amps just to hear something I have to pay more for? There's nothing thrilling for me hearing music in 5.1. It was too confusing, too pricey, I'd never heard it, I never saw the discs being sold in a physical location, hadn't seen a whole bunch of discs I wanted to buy online. So what was the point? Also as far as regular folk. When I first heard about CD's I wasn't that interested in sound quality. People said the quality was better. But you know what? The format itself pales to the quality of the gear that plays it. At the time I was hearing that almost all gear and formats sounded the same. That's because most people listen on terrible speakers and very wimpy amps or earbuds. How the heck is a format going to make a difference there? Sometimes it got louder without distorting. Sometimes there was actual treble! That was it. I didn't hear a soundstage etc. So why would regular folk want something that claims better sound when they know the stuff they have hasn't really sounded that different anyway? What they are interested in is something different or something convenient. Surround sound for movies: Sure! I heard it in theaters. I can visualize...it. Audio effects in the car chase scene coming from behind me? That sounds cool. Hey I can buy a surround system for $150 at walmart! Surround sound for music: Eh what? I want to hear a trumpet behind me? That's weird man. Wait it'll cost me a $700 for the player? Huh? CD's - it's so small! I don't have to rewind. I can buy it at stores, rent it at libraries. I can play it on my computer, my portable cd player, my home cd player, my dvd player, my cousin's got a cd player. You get the idea. Tape - it's so small! It's portable. I can record to it. ipod's, mp3's: This plays on my computer! I can take it around on my flash drive. I can download it for next to nothing. Oh it plays on my motorola! Oh it plays on my iphone! Oooh I can buy songs on my iphone! Wait it is now playing wirelessly on my car! You get the idea ....what does SACD offer? It's not portable, universal, cheap, simple, nor offer a killer app. It also doesn't guarantee an increase in sound quality unless you've already spent a ton of money on good speakers and so forth.
There's nothing thrilling for me hearing music in 5.1.
Apparently the Lounge Lizard who wrote this post has never heard music in a jazz club, arena, concert hall, bar, theater, outdoor amphitheater, sports arena, church, etc. Otherwise he would know (along with the direct music from the front musicians and singers) one hears music reflected off the ceiling, floor, walls (front side and rear), plus the sound of the audience in live performances as well as many natural sounds in an outside performance. Might be that trumpet I hear to my side or the rear is not the direct tone from the trumpet but a naturally reflected sound. Yes there are some performances with direct instruments purposely in all channels (might be cute but not my cup of tea unless that was the original performance like a flash mob, etc.). Also in 2 channel playback in your room some of the sound does in fact reflect off your own ceilings and walls but this is no substitute for a well recorded surround playback. This is the same person who hears amazingly subtle differences and some that are not that subtle (in his post) but can't tell the improvement from a well recorded 5 channel SACD, DVD-Audio or BluRay (even played back in Dolby Pro Logic II surround) music performance over the same performance recorded in 2 channel sound? WOW! I have done many of my own comparisons with my own 2 channel/5.1 channel system switching with a 2 channel recording back and forth from 2 channel direct to Dolby Pro Logic and have preferred the 5 channel version as better overall and more natural sounding about 80% of the time. Note, this is a digital manipulation of the 2 channel sound and still sounds consistently superior. I also have many times compared the stereo version with the exact same performance in 5 channel sound and there is almost always an improvement in sound. Some folks think there is an inherent superiority in 2 channel music. They also are the ones who never touch a tone control or EQ to flatten out there in room speaker response as if that is some sort of audiophile heresy. (Even though they have a severe in-room peak at 70Hz or a big peak from 200-400Hz, Huh! My speakers have superior off axis dispersion and my three L, C, R are all the exact same speaker for superb front stage tonal matching. The rear surrounds have the same exact two drivers for excellent tonal marching and are mounted high on the wall to reproduce the most natural reflective sound (much of it non-direct). His best buddy is the one who some time back started a thread about the myth of matched center channel speakers. Mostly pure nonsense claiming one could satisfactorily match a center speaker to a L&R unmatched speaker by using EQ frequency manipulation of the unmatched center speaker. Does his buddy actually have a 5 speaker system, just curious? Good Grief. Maybe one could also buy unmatched Left and Right speakers for a stereo pair at a garage sale or flea market and save lots of dough by simply EQ'ing them. Now I Must admit that my signature has never been restated since my last sabbatical but I do have a complete mostly Emotva 5.1 system and listen to both 2 and 5.1 music as well as movies. I might have noticed before but have since forgotten but I now see that Garbulky seems to have only 2 channel gear? Is that true or does he just not list his surround gear? Has he never owned surround gear? (Or in some time?) That's all for now since my Jet rag is still active. I hope Garbulky will reply directly to my questions about his system and my comments about surround sound and not do the circle jerk again.  PS/BTW, as I mentioned before: Next time you and/or Boomsilly do a review/shootout how about posting some good photos of the room, your gear rack, speakers, hook ups, seats and the products being tested, etc. I usually have in all of my reviews (most have been way back). Photos are easy to post and give us some extra confidence in and idea of your test environment. PS2: Plus, my Easy Nut Test (Made in America) is the official DAC sound test of the National Blind Foundation. Call now and get a second test absolutely free. Call within the next 10 minutes and we'll throw in another test for your buddy, absolutely free. (small S&H fee) |
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on Jan 6, 2017 7:47:22 GMT -5
SACD and DVD-A for that matter were secrets to most of who I spoke too when these came out. Everybody was happy with CD and frankly couldn't be bothered. This persisted for about 2 years. Then a bit later when DVD-A was dead for sure, SACD was only a minor curiosity and a minor player. Limited library and poor marketing reach. A pure recipe for keeping it small. Also the poor support to recording studios in the early days Sony gave them, didn't make it any better. These are facts I experienced in my audio journey, and frankly for me my feelings won't be lost if SACD goes away completely. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Jan 6, 2017 8:03:11 GMT -5
7) And, finally, the 900 pound gorilla - that sat on SACD's chest and killed it... was COPY PROTECTION. Physical SACD discs have very powerful copy protection, which includes a special physical format on the disc. This has some very nasty and annoying side effects. You can only play SACD discs on special player hardware. This means that you can only play them on "SACD players". In the beginning there were only a few players that could play them - and they were expensive. Later a few "universal players" appeared, but there was always a premium for being able to play SACDs. And you can't play them on computers - because they won't play on computer disc drives. And you can't copy them. And you can't play them through your favorite stereo DAC (you can only play the audio through HDMI - which almost no DACs accept). In short, between the limitations and the extra costs, they were simply TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO PLAY. If they really had been believed to sound better by a large enough segment of the market, then they could have surmounted this obstacle... but they weren't and didn't. However, even among audiophiles willing to spend a lot of money on equipment, only a minority really believe that SACDs are superior. Well that is not completely true. There was one consumer device, even from Sony!, which enables customers to make an ISO copy of the SACD disc. It was the original Sony PlayStation 3 which could play SACD's. Early firmware versions allowed to install your own build software on it. So there is software available which, rather easy, makes an ISO copy of the SACD to another computer. With the right player software like Foobar you can play those ISO images. Well as soon as this option became popular Sony removed the option of running your own software on the PS3 in newer firmwares.... So you could say they helped effectively to kill the SACD. I really cherish my old Sony Playstation 3 FAT, it is only used to make copies of my SACD's. By the way: Making a copy of your acquired music is legal in the Netherlands.... |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 6, 2017 8:21:07 GMT -5
7) And, finally, the 900 pound gorilla - that sat on SACD's chest and killed it... was COPY PROTECTION. Physical SACD discs have very powerful copy protection, which includes a special physical format on the disc. This has some very nasty and annoying side effects. You can only play SACD discs on special player hardware. This means that you can only play them on "SACD players". In the beginning there were only a few players that could play them - and they were expensive. Later a few "universal players" appeared, but there was always a premium for being able to play SACDs. And you can't play them on computers - because they won't play on computer disc drives. And you can't copy them. And you can't play them through your favorite stereo DAC (you can only play the audio through HDMI - which almost no DACs accept). In short, between the limitations and the extra costs, they were simply TOO MUCH TROUBLE TO PLAY. If they really had been believed to sound better by a large enough segment of the market, then they could have surmounted this obstacle... but they weren't and didn't. However, even among audiophiles willing to spend a lot of money on equipment, only a minority really believe that SACDs are superior. Well that is not completely true. There was one consumer device, even from Sony!, which enables customers to make an ISO copy of the SACD disc. It was the original Sony PlayStation 3 which could play SACD's. Early firmware versions allowed to install your own build software on it. So there is software available which, rather easy, makes an ISO copy of the SACD to another computer. With the right player software like Foobar you can play those ISO images. Well as soon as this option became popular Sony removed the option of running your own software on the PS3 in newer firmwares.... So you could say they helped effectively to kill the SACD. I really cherish my old Sony Playstation 3 FAT, it is only used to make copies of my SACD's. By the way: Making a copy of your acquired music is legal in the Netherlands.... A similar way of making flawless digital copies from an SACD also exists for some standalone Blu-ray players. (For example, the Oppo BDP-105). But for foobar2000 to be able to recognize and play the ISO files, you need to install this: sourceforge.net/projects/sacddecoder |
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Jan 6, 2017 11:40:07 GMT -5
... 5) EARLY CD recordings were subject to many limitations, including limitations on the quality of the A/D converters available, and limitations on the capabilities of early editing software. As a result, the sound quality of many early CDs was poor for reasons OTHER THAN limitations in the CD format itself. Combining this factor with the previous one, even if the SACD version of a given album sounds better than the CD version, there is serious doubt that it's better BECAUSE it's in SACD format, rather than for any of several other reasons. Just because some early CDs sounded bad, and many early SACDs sounded good, you can't infer that the SACD FORMAT is superior. ... And there was another Early CD phenomena that I noticed back then. A lot of CDs were rushed out the door using the original LP Stereo Masters instead of being remastered into new Stereo Masters which took advantage on the increased dynamic range of CD. A good example of this were all the early CD "pressings" of the Jefferson Airplane catalog. They all sounded compressed and muddy. I ended up having to rebuy all of my Jefferson Airplane CDs in I think the late 80's when they finally got remastered. And these poor CD Masters kept appearing for some time. For instance, in 1991 I was in the Oakland Hills fire (October 1991) and lost everything. So I started rebuilding my CD collection at that point meaning that, for the most part, all of my CDs were produced a fair chunk of time after CDs became popular. But even today I find recordings that sound crappy[1] and I have to search around to see if there's a more modern remastering. I've rebought a fair number in the last six months. Casey [1] In May 2016 I replaced my very well loved Vandersteen 2Ce's with Legacy Audio Focus SE's. I did love the Vanderseens, but they were never very precise or revealing speakers. But certainly a great value with very good low-end extension for the price ($1,250/pair when I bought them in 1991). The Legacies on the other hand ... very precise and very unforgiving of poorly recorded/mastered CDs. Hence the rash of remaster purchases in the last six months. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 6, 2017 12:22:01 GMT -5
Interesting. I prefer the album versions to early cds because the vinyl is less compressed.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by rogersch on Jan 6, 2017 13:21:12 GMT -5
Well that is not completely true. There was one consumer device, even from Sony!, which enables customers to make an ISO copy of the SACD disc. It was the original Sony PlayStation 3 which could play SACD's. Early firmware versions allowed to install your own build software on it. So there is software available which, rather easy, makes an ISO copy of the SACD to another computer. With the right player software like Foobar you can play those ISO images. Well as soon as this option became popular Sony removed the option of running your own software on the PS3 in newer firmwares.... So you could say they helped effectively to kill the SACD. I really cherish my old Sony Playstation 3 FAT, it is only used to make copies of my SACD's. By the way: Making a copy of your acquired music is legal in the Netherlands.... A similar way of making flawless digital copies from an SACD also exists for some standalone Blu-ray players. (For example, the Oppo BDP-105). But for foobar2000 to be able to recognize and play the ISO files, you need to install this: sourceforge.net/projects/sacddecoderThanks for the suggestion. I tried it with my OPPO BDP-103 and it works. Great. Now I can sell off my PS3.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 15:49:20 GMT -5
Garbulky admits: I don't have a 5.1 system. He also doesn't even have a subwoofer according to his signature. Perhaps he doesn't know what the .1 in 5.1 means! I'm sure he thinks his Axiom M80's preclude the necessity of a sub. Axiom has 7 subs and says: Deep, deep bass impact is yours with an Axiom subwoofer. Great for augmenting stereo listening ..... A "sub" is a speaker that produces very deep bass tones, lower even than the bass that a big, floorstanding speaker's woofers can produce...... I guess he listens to music for regular folk.
Isn't it amazing that he is such an expert on surround sound and center speakers, having only a 2 channel system at home. Oh yes he has heard a surround system in a movie theater. He knows that surround sound is for car chase effects and he can buy a surround system at Walmart for $150. Oh, that's for regular folk. What about non-regular folk, many here at the Lounge.
Obviously he is not aware of some of the fabulous movie Blu-Ray sound tracks that have beautiful sounds effects and multi-channel music. Plus the great multi-channel music discs that were produced specifically for 5.1, etc.? He can't even bother with a 5.1 system but spends hours and hours on the possibility of very slight differences in DAC's. My home system is superior to any movie sound right here in my own condo. It also very close to the sound I have heard in the Seattle Benaroya Hall. Just the marvelous music surround track at the end of the movie Life of Pi was worth the cost of my sub and extra three speakers and XPA-5. All of my system, including plasma, is at least 6 years old or older except for my XMC-1.
Just my opinion Gar, I think you should limit yourself to comments about 2 channel systems, period. Thanks.
PS: Rather than forcing us to march thru your never ending ongoing journey threads, perhaps you could be so kind as to offer some links to the photos from you and Boom. Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2017 22:14:25 GMT -5
Garbulky admits: I don't have a 5.1 system. He also doesn't even have a subwoofer according to his signature. Perhaps he doesn't know what the .1 in 5.1 means! I'm sure he thinks his Axiom M80's preclude the necessity of a sub. Axiom has 7 subs and says: Deep, deep bass impact is yours with an Axiom subwoofer. Great for augmenting stereo listening ..... A "sub" is a speaker that produces very deep bass tones, lower even than the bass that a big, floorstanding speaker's woofers can produce...... I guess he listens to music for regular folk. Isn't it amazing that he is such an expert on surround sound and center speakers, having only a 2 channel system at home. Oh yes he has heard a surround system in a movie theater. He knows that surround sound is for car chase effects and he can buy a surround system at Walmart for $150. Oh, that's for regular folk. What about non-regular folk, many here at the Lounge. Obviously he is not aware of some of the fabulous movie Blu-Ray sound tracks that have beautiful sounds effects and multi-channel music. Plus the great multi-channel music discs that were produced specifically for 5.1, etc.? He can't even bother with a 5.1 system but spends hours and hours on the possibility of very slight differences in DAC's. My home system is superior to any movie sound right here in my own condo. It also very close to the sound I have heard in the Seattle Benaroya Hall. Just the marvelous music surround track at the end of the movie Life of Pi was worth the cost of my sub and extra three speakers and XPA-5. All of my system, including plasma, is at least 6 years old or older except for my XMC-1. Just my opinion Gar, I think you should limit yourself to comments about 2 channel systems, period. Thanks. PS: Rather than forcing us to march thru your never ending ongoing journey threads, perhaps you could be so kind as to offer some links to the photos from you and Boom. Thanks No Chuckie. You must read everything! (Including perhaps the last two posts again). Must be embarrassed to post any photos? Also embarrassed that you obviously don't know schiit about surround sound! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 2:23:04 GMT -5
Must be embarrassed to post any photos? Also embarrassed that you obviously don't know schiit about surround sound! It's a wild ride all right! Not sure what's going on here, Chuckie?! That's obvious Garbulky!  |
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 6:05:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yves on Jan 7, 2017 7:04:49 GMT -5
Interesting. I prefer the album versions to early cds because the vinyl is less compressed. Trey After you've heard the MFSL 45 rpm mono remaster of Surrealistic Pillow, the CD versions all are quickly repurposed as beer coasters. Last year's MFSL SACD mono remaster also couldn't touch that one so yeah... dynamics vs. the lifeless (again). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 12:32:57 GMT -5
Dare I bring up Vinyl? Well as not to start another format war...I will say this. Does anyone remember going to the mall, Peaches Records and Tapes or Tower Records? It was an event...You could easily spend 3-4 hours going through Albums,and yes, in later years CD's. It is where you could "try it before you buy it" at one of the listening stations, "see" what was hot, get others opinions etc. it was cool! We would wait in line like waiting for next up on Ms Pac-Man! Well not to get too nostalgic I would have to concur with a lot of the opinions here that downloads killed the Record/CD/SACD market as we knew it. My kids that are 17 and 20 and only know what a CD is because that was we used in the car when they were young...Again foiled now by Car Hard Drives, Bluetooth and Streaming. Kids today (did I just say that? Next I'll be yelling to stay off my lawn!) don't care about the fidelity or integrity of the recording they just don't want to spend more than 3 seconds downloading it and want to make sure the bass is there as most have no other way to measure pace or time of a recording other than the "Bass line". Anyway I still own about 200 CD's and 20-30 SACD's and although I have come full circle and am now back to Vinyl I do often listen to cd's and truly really enjoy the occasional SACD and was sad that SACD didn't turn into the "go to" source because it truly gave digital music Verve and the all important believability quotient...A sound stage!
To paraphrase "The Buggles"...Downloading Killed the SACD/CD Star"...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 7, 2017 20:02:09 GMT -5
Why did SACD and DVD Audio fail? Because they were out chasing girls when they should have been studying and doing their homework. Now their economic future will involve flipping hamburgers at the house of clowns & wishing they'd done better in school.
Juvenile-audio-delinquents?
|
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 7, 2017 20:05:43 GMT -5
Why did SACD and DVD Audio fail? Because they were out chasing girls when they should have been studying and doing their homework. Now their economic future will involve flipping hamburgers at the house of clowns & wishing they'd done better in school. Juvenile-audio-delinquents? Failed because Sony thought they were entitled to be dictators of the SACD world. Unlike Betamax they didn't even need any competition to cause it to fail. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 0:45:01 GMT -5
That's obvious Garbulky! Let's try to keep things positive if we can. Your posts are coming off as aggressive, condescending and fault finding in nature. Several times, it's gotten personal. We've had a good history for the most part on this lounge so I'm not sure what's going on. I'm fine with disagreements, but I would like some respect in our interactions. Sorry Gar if you feel that way! I in no way am trying to purposely be condescending or personal and I see none of that in my posts. Not sure what you mean by finding fault in nature? Aggressive, that might be correct as you avoid almost all of my questions. This forum is suppose to be, IMO, give and take. As I mentioned before I have mostly ignored the posts of you and the Boom (you both seem to be clones, opinion wise) when you lecture and make threads and posts within them that appear to be dogmatic and 100% correct with no room for any disagreement: A visit to mr and mrs Boomzilla's! .......... A visit to mr and mrs Boomzilla's! .......... Why double-blind testing is completely worthless........... the myth of the matching center channel speaker .......... Schiit Gungnir vs. Emotiva Stealth DC-1 vs. Emotiva PT-100 (The DAC Shootout) are a few examples of threads or contained posts that seemed to me to leave little if any room for directly opposing views (like many of mine). Some folks here get upset if any other members disagree with their opinions or even get sightly off subject. IMO, this is a forum and threads are fine to present ones opinions on any subject or simply to start a general discussion on any permissible subject as long as the thread starter does not restrict opposing posts. As I have decided to start challenging some of your posts, you seem to not want to answer most of my legitimate questions or change the subject or simply blowing off the opposing view. That IMO is your fault and not mine. Using strong language (that is not profane or simply name calling) like; I think your position is nonsense or you are wrong or other strong language is fine as long as you do allow their post and answer any questions about your test procedures, etc. Examples of several of your comments: Okay you guys are right. I made it up! How about talking about something else?But you gotta quit with the lectures man. Ugh. .....sounds more laid back and less present but also slightly more sophisticated in nature. Don’t ask me to explain what any of that actually means though!......These are fine but not very open minded to my thinking BTW: I haven't had much time to go thru all your posts to find photos of you room. I will continue as I have time. The reason is to see how you have your gear and speakers set up. I figure if you are making all of these very subtle, minute and barely noticeable differences in DAC's, etc. you better have your speakers properly placed in your room. I've noticed some times that with posted photos from other members who find such tiny differences in such gear that they have their speakers very poorly placed in the room. IMO, room treatments are highly overrated in solving this resulting speaker sound imbalance that is due to lousy speaker placement. I did see one photo of your room which looked like your right speaker was very close to the side wall, just the opposite for your left speaker. Sometimes photos can be deceiving due to the angel, etc., but your placement did not look good to me (in the photo) for precise L&R speaker matching. |
|
|
|
Post by Wideawake on Jan 8, 2017 1:37:32 GMT -5
Wow, Chuckie, you used to be so funny. I used to enjoy reading your posts. Why this anger and vitriol? Gar and Boom are some of the nicest folks on this forum. You may not agree with them but no need to rip into them like this.
I was learning so much from this thread and hope to continue to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 4:47:00 GMT -5
Wow, Chuckie, you used to be so funny. I used to enjoy reading your posts. Why this anger and vitriol? Gar and Boom are some of the nicest folks on this forum. You may not agree with them but no need to rip into them like this. I was learning so much from this thread and hope to continue to do so. I give credit were it is due, IMO. Yes I use lots of humor. I am very tired of the continual imaginary nonsense with no evidence of any controls in their many reviews/opinions. The thread Why double-blind testing is completely worthless is a good example of their very closed minded threads/posts. The other one about the myth of matched center speakers is another one and until now I never posted there or even mentioned it. I'm also a nice person. Several years ago I spent 5 hours on the phone with a new member in Australia on my nickel. He was sort of a newbie and I went thru all the possible components, especially from Emo. We talked again for about 2 hours and he seemed straight on what he would buy. He soon disappeared and I never even heard a thank you from him. (who's the nice guy?). I have spent countless of hundreds of hours either on the phone, PM or e-mail trying to help others out only when I feel I'm more experienced than them. There's lots I don't know and you will not see me post here about tube gear, electronics parts such as condensers, streaming and other subjects. I guess you think it OK for Gar to get into details and criticize SACD, multi-channel sound and movies when he doesn't even have surround gear? Yes, I have become rather perplexed at his unwillingness to even answer any of my questions. I have many times asked other folks here to post photos of their setup, because one can many times see a problem with a problem in their speaker placement from a photo. From the one photo I had to look up it looks like his right speaker is misplaced. Gar doesn't need any help because he already knows it all. I didn't know if he for whatever reason was blocked. Maybe he gave me a bad time in the past. PM's in IMO are not for arguing or l ets take it out back nonsense. If we can't express it civilly in a post then a PM is not the place for it. PM's are for friendly messages between fellow members, not rants (many times alcohol fueled) usually late like this time from the Easr Coast/South. I would be happy to make sure he is not blocked if he wants to send me some photos and we can converse about his speaker placement if he likes (the photo PM only). Sorry, I have no problem admitting when someone corrects my mistake and admitting I'm wrong. It is not a matter of disagreeing with them like blind versus subjective tests. It when they make pontifical/infallible statements. I hate for newbies to take their posts as gospel. Gar and Boom seem like nice guys but many times they appear to put themselves above everyone else here as the supreme audio/video experts. Here is a post that I made prior to seeing your quoted post above. emotivalounge.proboards.com/thread/49051/boomzillas-latino-vta-review-secrets?page=2(If I see posts/threads/reviews like this from Gar I'll be very complimentary too.) Sayonara |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Jan 8, 2017 5:11:48 GMT -5
Hi Chuckie - A small clarification, please - garbulky and I are two different Loungers. The threads you keep referring to are not garbulky's; they are, instead, mine. I do sometimes post deliberately provocative threads in hope of learning something (and I usually do). To the best of my recollection, garbulky has started no such threads. Additionally, garbulky and I do not always agree. I'd set our "right-on" rate at about 50%. I like tubes - Gar doesn't. Gar's into traditional power supplies - I'm not. Gar has gone loco for room-treatments - I haven't. Etc. I realize that we both manage to irritate you, but no malice should be intended. We all disagree. Good. So long as we can disagree without acrimony, which is what we should be working toward on Emotiva's Lounge, then it's all productive for those reading our various opinions and claims. The readers can decide for themselves who is right, who is wrong, and in cases where it's a grey area, the reader can pick from the discussion whatever factoids are useful to them. As to Gar and/or I having any tendency to "put themselves above everyone else here as the supreme audio/video experts," I make no such claim (nor do I recall garbulky having done so). It isn't my fault if someone perceives me that way - I don't claim to have any special insight that others lack. I do state my opinions - and I try to back them up with facts. I do sometimes try to challenge "conventional wisdom" as well, but when I do so, I give my reasons. Nobody is required to agree, and in fact most times that I start a provocative thread, I get hammered (not speaking of you) by those who have different opinions. And that's a GOOD thing (I've been wrong before, and will be again). That said, I value your opinions, Chuckie. I've been forced to reconsider some long-held beliefs based on threads here on the Lounge, and find this a valuable and occasionally eye-opening place to visit. So please feel free to disagree whenever you wish - the only Oracle I know of was reputed to be in Delphi - not the Emotiva Lounge. Cordially - Boomzilla |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2017 5:36:16 GMT -5
Sorry Gar if you feel that way! I in no way am trying to purposely be condescending or personal and I see none of that in my posts. Not sure what you mean by finding fault in nature? Aggressive, that might be correct as you avoid almost all of my questions. This forum is suppose to be, IMO, give and take. As I mentioned before I have mostly ignored the posts of you and the Boom (you both seem to be clones, opinion wise) when you lecture and make threads and posts within them that appear to be dogmatic and 100% correct with no room for any disagreement: A visit to mr and mrs Boomzilla's! .......... A visit to mr and mrs Boomzilla's! .......... Why double-blind testing is completely worthless........... the myth of the matching center channel speaker .......... Schiit Gungnir vs. Emotiva Stealth DC-1 vs. Emotiva PT-100 (The DAC Shootout) are a few examples of threads or contained posts that seemed to me to leave little if any room for directly opposing views (like many of mine). Some folks here get upset if any other members disagree with their opinions or even get sightly off subject. IMO, this is a forum and threads are fine to present ones opinions on any subject or simply to start a general discussion on any permissible subject as long as the thread starter does not restrict opposing posts. As I have decided to start challenging some of your posts, you seem to not want to answer most of my legitimate questions or change the subject or simply blowing off the opposing view. That IMO is your fault and not mine. Using strong language (that is not profane or simply name calling) like; I think your position is nonsense or you are wrong or other strong language is fine as long as you do allow their post and answer any questions about your test procedures, etc. Examples of several of your comments: Okay you guys are right. I made it up! How about talking about something else?But you gotta quit with the lectures man. Ugh. .....sounds more laid back and less present but also slightly more sophisticated in nature. Don’t ask me to explain what any of that actually means though!......These are fine but not very open minded to my thinking BTW: I haven't had much time to go thru all your posts to find photos of you room. I will continue as I have time. The reason is to see how you have your gear and speakers set up. I figure if you are making all of these very subtle, minute and barely noticeable differences in DAC's, etc. you better have your speakers properly placed in your room. I've noticed some times that with posted photos from other members who find such tiny differences in such gear that they have their speakers very poorly placed in the room. IMO, room treatments are highly overrated in solving this resulting speaker sound imbalance that is due to lousy speaker placement. I did see one photo of your room which looked like your right speaker was very close to the side wall, just the opposite for your left speaker. Sometimes photos can be deceiving due to the angel, etc., but your placement did not look good to me (in the photo) for precise L&R speaker matching. I'm not sure how to respond here. I tried to PM you but it said I was blocked. My posts have always been subjective regarding to audio. They remain so without apologies. As for pics of the room, as you mentioned, the reason for you wanting to see it was to find some fault with it. Fault finding and justification of every single thing I do is not my interest on this forum. I post my opinions. If that's the opposite of your experience, post your experience. I think that's fine with disagreeing opinions. However I'm not interested in some competition to "win the point". Sometimes when the points of disagreement are going to be obvious I don't see much point in rehashing things. Objective versus subjective will inevitably run up against disagreements on everything. Because by being objective every single thing about perception is inherently flawed and cannot be trusted unless controlled for in some experimental fashion. By a subjective, one essentially relies on perception and doesn't go around double guessing themselves. It's like telling a classic car owner all the billion reasons why a classic car is a bad idea - the reliability, the lack of spare parts, terrible gas economy, horrible safety ratings. Then wondering why the owner isn't really responding to these points as to why he is wrong and totally illogical. Well the reason is that's not where he's coming from at all. When I have a conversation, I assume that the other person is interested in my point of view. If all the other person wants to do is lecture me on why they are right or that I don't really know anything, then it's not really much of a conversation. I hope you understand what I'm getting at. If possible, let's take this matter up in PM if you wish to converse some more so as not to derail the thread. Thanks. As I hinted to Wideawake, I have received nasty PM's in the past. Many I'm quite sure were alcohol fueled by the very late time and profane language. I don't drink. I'm not saying this applies to you and I don't remember if and why I blocked you from sending me a PM. My point is that there IMO is a very wrong opinion of the purpose of the PM. Some here think a PM is to post comments that are not appropriate for a regular post. Sort of like a disagreement in a bar and one person says let's take this out back. This is not what a PM is for. It is for a private message between Lounge friends of a non-confrontational manner. Other friendly private posts are fine. If one cannot express themselves in a regular post/thread in a reasonably polite manner (without profanity, name calling, threat's, etc.) then it shouldn't be posted and not in a PM. In you don't want folks to disagree with your thread or posts that is your problem and not theirs. I have the right here to post in response to any thread or other post to as long as I don't use profanity, etc. as I mentioned above. I will continue to make posts here of my opinions consistent with the thread title (SACD/DVD-Audio) which in no way derails this thread. I happen to actually own SACD's. DVD-Audio and have a very fine surround system. Not to be a smart aleck but that seems to make me more qualified to post in your this thread than you. .......... Sometimes when the points of disagreement are going to be obvious I don't see much point in rehashing things.
Then don't post anymore. Others can continue the discussion whether it is your thread or not........... Sometimes when the points of disagreement are going to be obvious I don't see much point in rehashing things. Objective versus subjective will inevitably run up against disagreements on everything. Because by being objective every single thing about perception is inherently flawed and cannot be trusted unless controlled for in some experimental fashion. By a subjective, one essentially relies on perception and doesn't go around double guessing themselves.
You clearly think you are right and they are wrong. You are not opened minded one bit! What I hear you saying is that my thread about subjective reviews is closed to anyone who disagrees with me........... When I have a conversation, I assume that the other person is interested in my point of view. If all the other person wants to do is lecture me on why they are right or that I don't really know anything, then it's not really much of a conversation. Again a very closed minded statement. You don't mention that you are in fact also interested in what the other person's point of view. You have already presumed that they simply want to lecture you, etc.. Very closed minded ..... not open minded!
|
|
Well that wasn't the reason for me when I heard about it.
