Computer Audiophiles Are Anti-Computer

[AJ Soundfield]

Okay, now we are have a misunderstanding

We??

when I say "measurable" I mean that there is a physical, actual instrument in the area that can take a reading, which fairly precisely shows an anomaly occurring. This differs from being theoretically measurable, as in, one could engineer a device which would be able to register what was happening, that the ear was picking up.

No, measurable means measurable, whether you're dancing and waving hands or not.

This was the point about wow and flutter, it existed from the moment the first device spun a medium that had a recording imprinted upon it; the fact that no-one could measure it at the time is irrelevant.

Right and a horse counted back then too. Folks who heard voices in their heads were usually committed.
So much has changed.

 

[Mivera]

We??


No, measurable means measurable, whether you're dancing and waving hands or not.


Right and a horse counted back then too. Folks who heard voices in their heads were usually committed.
So much has changed.

Did Amir hire you as a sideshow to keep activity alive on the forum? Surely he doesn't think you're an asset to the objectivist camp. Amir is an intelligent man.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Did Amir hire you as a sideshow to keep activity alive on the forum?

It was more of a bribe. He used his old connections at MS to get me Windows 10 for free.

Surely he doesn't think you're an asset to the objectivist camp.

He doesn't and don't call me Shirley.

Amir is an intelligent man.

You should stick to shilling audiophile widgets, stand up comedy isn't your forte.

 

[fas42]

No, measurable means measurable, whether you're dancing and waving hands or not.


Right and a horse counted back then too. Folks who heard voices in their heads were usually committed.
So much has changed.

Okay, looks like the tilt switch has been activated in AJ - so, Game Over ...

 

[Opus111]

I think the fact that so many posters have demonstrated they think JK is on another planet shows your attempts at defending and siding with him are the only comic thing going on around here.

Defending? That's a hilarious idea, thanks once again for the entertainment BE.

 

[Opus111]

I'm deeply offended you would insult the words dumb and dumber this way.

I was miffed he used my and JK's names in the wrong order in relation to them.

 

[Thomas savage]

It was more of a bribe. He used his old connections at MS to get me Windows 10 for free.


He doesn't and don't call me Shirley.


You should stick to shilling audiophile widgets, stand up comedy isn't your forte.

I thought you payed good money for guys to call you Shirley

 

[John Kenny]

I was miffed he used my and JK's names in the wrong order in relation to them.

We may fight over the order of "dumb & dumber" but the final accolade is retained very firmly by BE - "dumbest"

 

[Cosmik]

AJ. Very much enjoying your ultra-objective approach.

So which of the following is/are true? Measurements can tell us that:
(a) a piece of equipment is performing as expected?
(b) a piece of equipment is performing as intended?
(c) a piece of equipment is performing well?
(d) One piece of equipment performs better than another in one particular, measurable respect?

And which of these is/are true? ABX testing can tell us whether
(a) a measurable difference is audible to humans?
(b) human listeners prefer the sound of one piece of equipment to another?
(c) human listeners prefer the sound of one type of equipment to another?
(d) a piece, or type of equipment sounds more realistic than another?
(e) a piece of equipment sounds good

Would it be true to say that you build your own speakers, but you don't know how they sound?

 

[John Kenny]

Okay, looks like the tilt switch has been activated in AJ - so, Game Over ...

Yea, you only get brief, very rare moments of clarity from AJ - he is mostly severely tilted

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It was more of a bribe. He used his old connections at MS to get me Windows 10 for free.

You paid too much.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Okay, looks like the tilt switch has been activated in AJ - so, Game Over ...

You've confused me with Data on Star Trek.
As has been stated for eons, the Subjective vs Objective facade is a false dichotomy.
All audio(phile) "arguments" (scare quote because one could no more argue with a shoe or a flea than an audiophile) are explained by Dunning-Kruger. It is an intellectual chasm, between rational adults and illogical, technically illiterate, unreasonable infantile types without the cognizance to be aware that their perceptions are subject to error.
Little Johnny perfectly embodied that in this thread, with his he and the other kids "heard" noises (Santa, Intona, etc) and therefore they are real (of soundfield origin).
Like any infant, they get upset when adults try to explain this to them and tend to lash out. They simply can't comprehend fallibility, which is understandable, given the disorder.
You don't seem as bitter Frank, your hallucinations tend to be very funny in the genuinely wacky type sense, so I like your comments in general.

 

[John Kenny]

AJ. .......
Would it be true to say that you build your own speakers, but you don't know how they sound?

Don't question the curmudgeon - he's been asked that many times & he breaks out in a verbal rash at the very mention.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

AJ. Very much enjoying your ultra-objective approach.
So which of the following is/are true? Measurements can tell us that:
(a) a piece of equipment is performing as expected?
(b) a piece of equipment is performing as intended?
(c) a piece of equipment is performing well?
(d) One piece of equipment performs better than another in one particular, measurable respect?

All can be true.

ABX testing can tell us whether
(a) a measurable difference is audible to humans?

If isolated then correlated yes.

ABX testing can tell us whether
(b) human listeners prefer the sound of one piece of equipment to another?
(c) human listeners prefer the sound of one type of equipment to another?
(d) a piece, or type of equipment sounds more realistic than another?
(e) a piece of equipment sounds good

No, those are preference tests, ABX is best for small impairments (or psychological treatment for audiophiles like little Johnny). AB like Harman does is suffice.

Would it be true to say that you build your own speakers, but you don't know how they sound?

No, I would say I don't know whether I would prefer them blind over speaker X that measures similarly, which is why I don't say that.

 

[John Kenny]

There that answers your question, Cosmik - he has never compared them to other speakers blind
"No, I would say I don't know whether I would prefer them blind over speaker X that measures similarly, which is why I don't say that."
No, you just claim, what is it again, oh yea "superior reproduction products" with nary a measurement or blind test in sight - a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger psychosis you're so fond of

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Don't question the curmudgeon - he's been asked that many times & he breaks out in a verbal rash at the very mention.

Why not? He seems to have the right answers.

Tim

 

[AJ Soundfield]

he has never compared them to other speakers blind

For what purpose and objective claim little Johnny?

a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger

Yes, thanks for your assistance as always.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Why not? He seems to have the right answers.

Tim

From your reading ability of course.
Remember little Johnnys IQ and anger issues from 40yrs of Chem fumes. Here it comes...

 

[Cosmik]

No, I would say I don't know whether I would prefer them blind over speaker X that measures similarly, which is why I don't say that.

Thanks. It's an amazingly dry philosophy! The 'goodness' of a speaker can only be expressed in terms relative to other existing speakers, and only in terms of questions that have been thought worth asking by scientists, and tested for using a tiny subset of rooms, music and 'trained' listeners. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, but to an outsider it could look like an exercise in circularity!

 

[AJ Soundfield]

The 'goodness' of a speaker can only be expressed in terms relative to other existing speakers

Correct. Stereo is a construct. In rare cases, a facsimile of an actual event. I've posted this a dozen times http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136
but I also understand it will be far beyond audiophile IQ comprehension limits.
The bottom line is yes, relative, if one is ABing.

and only in terms of questions that have been thought worth asking by scientists

Wrong. Found worthy.

tested for using a tiny subset of rooms, music and 'trained' listeners. Not saying there's anything wrong with it, but to an outsider it could look like an exercise in circularity!

Hundreds of rooms and thousands of listeners with statistical relevance to population/cultures etc. Of course, no one but audiophiles claim absolutes.
If of course a believer thinks that the science has missed something "worthy", they are free to perform their own valid tests and present contrary evidence instead of bitching, sobbing inconsolably and chucking toys from the pram.
Of course if one finds the current understanding sufficient and trustworthy, then there is no onus to repeat the same and reinvent the wheel.
Again, I understand if a severe IQ shortfall prevents comprehension of all of the above. If we hear different and see different and run different based on capabilities, then it should be no insult to suggest that IQ, reasoning, logic and critical thinking skills etc will also vary.
Little Johnny and TOEpus111 et al, provide perfect contrast here.

cheers,

AJ