BoredErica
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Thread Starter
- #241
LOL okay, sorry for blasting you then. <3Sorry man, I made a fat finger error. Don't know what happend but my respons wasn't aimed at you..
LOL okay, sorry for blasting you then. <3Sorry man, I made a fat finger error. Don't know what happend but my respons wasn't aimed at you..
That's why I suggested to divert this part of the discussion to https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...surements-everything-or-nothing.29062/page-23So, here we are again, engaged in discourse with a new arrival who hasn’t taken any time to get familiar with some of the bedrock ideas and research that drive the majority on this site. It is a pattern that seems to repeat on a daily basis.
If we can’t agree on vocabulary and building blocks, there is no hope. You confuse part for the whole in this comment. I think you are trolling and will put you on mute.If fidelity can be verified by measurement, why would you need to have any sort of listening tests. Peter Walker said the ideal amplifier would act like a ‘slide wire with gain,‘ can’t disagree with that. Unfortunately even Peter Walker couldn’t quite get there. No amplifier ever made has!
If you are into HiFi or Home Cinema you are chasing an illusion. Stereo is a simulation of reality and Home Cinema sound is there to make you feel you are in the middle of the action, you are not. So all this guff about fidelity is dishonest, just sit back and enjoy the ride.
To be an objectivist, you have to be blind every time you listen to your speakers! Have your blindfold ready before you enter the room at all times.When you look at how we actually buy equipment we are all subjectivists to some degree. If you don’t look, objectivist!
One would think this is why there are "mods", to moderate discussions. Highly problematic if they lack the expertise to identify misinformation from facts. Commonly all they (can) do is to act on a set of (self-made) rules they deem proper social behavior regardless of context.I'd say this all points to the essence of the internet and social networks. There are no editors, no one to point out "what you are saying has zero correspondence to what you think you are saying or reality. Re-write this using the facts or forget about being published."
Of course, as anyone who's seen "Citizen Kane" knows, having an editor doesn't guarantee the truth will out, and sometimes an editor can prevent the truth from ever seeing the light of day. But when fantasies are constantly stated as facts without any knowledge of the facts, people become inured to the pervasive BS, particularly as regards such things as audio. Needn't point out what also follows, in the very same way.
No, because “those people” still listen to voices and instruments in the real world (“live”), and the brain references that as baseline, and variations from that are heard as ‘wrong’.For those people - speakers and headphones with rising high ends may sound more natural since they compensate to some extent for the loss of hearing in those regions as we age.
The mods here tend to monitor folks going off the rails with disinformation.One would think this is why there are "mods", to moderate discussions. Highly problematic if they lack the expertise to identify misinformation from facts. Commonly all they (can) do is to act on a set of (self-made) rules they deem proper social behavior regardless of context.
Very true but once you objectively measure their hearing loss and compensate for it, they will indeed hear better.No, because “those people” still listen to voices and instruments in the real world (“live”), and the brain references that as baseline, and variations from that are heard as ‘wrong’.
cheers
But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.Very true but once you objectively measure their hearing loss and compensate for it, they will indeed hear better.
And some people can't compensate for hearing loss.But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.
This is something I've been wondering about for along time. Is there any research done on this topic?But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural,
I don't need listening tests, I use them as a reality check to make sure I haven't fooled myself with any measurements. Peter Walker did get there with the 303, which was transparent under any measure when used within its specification. He even chained together a large number of them, I don't remember how many, but lots, (50 seems to ring a bell) with an attenuator between each one, such that the overall gain was the same as just one. The results were still transparent with the exception of noise, which had built up in an entirely predictable manner given the number of amplifiers.If fidelity can be verified by measurement, why would you need to have any sort of listening tests. Peter Walker said the ideal amplifier would act like a ‘slide wire with gain,‘ can’t disagree with that. Unfortunately even Peter Walker couldn’t quite get there. No amplifier ever made has!
If you are into HiFi or Home Cinema you are chasing an illusion. Stereo is a simulation of reality and Home Cinema sound is there to make you feel you are in the middle of the action, you are not. So all this guff about fidelity is dishonest, just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Yes, adaption is key. Interestingly in binaural testing it has been found that some people could hear better with other people's (outer) ears.But they won’t like it more, and won’t say is sounds more natural, unless they wear the aids 24/7 for some period of time. The brain needs time to reset the calibration line, the baseline, the reference point.
You missed my point — that being both a subjectivist and objectivist makes the labels irrelevant. If my aim was to redefine subjectivist and objectivist — ie same as your aim — then I would have expanded on them. But I have no such aim in this thread.
I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups, but to me, that's the largest distinction and the one that results in most other disagreements between the two groups.This is what I'm asking of anyone here: I'm not saying "Objectivist/Subjectivist" is the best possible reference for the difference many here hold vs the "golden ears" crowd. I'm just suggesting that IF one asks what they could mean, I'm trying to suggest what they can identify. But IF someone wants to reject those labels, fine...but what's the alternative? If you just refuse to have any reference then you make things just as awkward, and if you can't identify and refer to a trend in some people, then you miss the reality of that trend.
My understanding is the complaint is the "-ist's", which makes it doctrines which refute the opposite principle.Ok, then what you have are complaints but no solutions.
I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups,
The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational."
I thought @SIY offered a good definition, one that makes sense to me: those who believe that uncontrolled audio evaluation is the correct way to evaluate audio equipment, and those who do not. Assign whatever label you want to these two groups,
Uncontrolled. It's a perfectly cromulent word, and it is an accurate and concise description with no ambiguity.
The correct words for someone loudly drawing conclusions while denying the need for basic controls would be things like "superstitious," "faith-based," "anti-science," and "irrational."