AVForums podcast: objective vs subjective debate

[JPA]

Adding a gushing tone is precisely an example of adding semantic content. "Some of the best on the planet" has idiomatic meaning beyond the sum of its linguistic parts. It creates an added and quite specific emphasis on the object being superlative and clearly means "the best" in the sense of "top tier." True, "some of the best on the planet" does not mean the single very best compared to everything else out there - but it does means they are in a small class of items and that class is indeed the single best class compared to all others out there.

Audiosciencereview.com: Come for the objective audio gear reviews and discussions. Stay for the linguistics lessons.

 

[Axo1989]

Adding a gushing tone is precisely an example of adding semantic content. "Some of the best on the planet" has idiomatic meaning beyond the sum of its linguistic parts. It creates an added and quite specific emphasis on the object being superlative and clearly means "the best" in the sense of "top tier." True, "some of the best on the planet" does not mean the single very best compared to everything else out there - but it does means they are in a small class of items and that class is indeed the single best class compared to all others out there.

No, semantics is the literal meaning of phrases and sentences. You are thinking of pragmatics, which is the meaning in context of discourse. Idiomatic meaning is in the domain of pragmatics. I said semantic content because that’s literally what I meant.

 

[tmtomh]

No, semantics is the literal meaning of phrases and sentences. You are thinking of pragmatics, which is the meaning in context of discourse. Idiomatic meaning is in the domain of pragmatics. I said semantic content because that’s literally what I meant.

Fair enough. In that case your problem is that your tried to tell Amir he was wrong because the part of the statement you left out didn’t add to the semantic meaning - but limiting the meaning only to the semantic meaning was an arbitrary (and self-serving) limitation you just pulled out of your hat. The fact remains that the full statement had an additional layer of meaning, which is precisely the meaning Amir was referring to. Whether that meaning is classified as semantic or pragmatic is irrelevant.

 

[Axo1989]

Fair enough. In that case your problem is that your tried to tell Amir he was wrong because the part of the statement you left out didn’t add to the semantic meaning - but limiting the meaning only to the semantic meaning was an arbitrary (and self-serving) limitation you just pulled out of your hat. The fact remains that the full statement had an additional layer of meaning, which is precisely the meaning Amir was referring to. Whether that meaning is classified as semantic or pragmatic is irrelevant.

I clarified my use of "semantic" in response to your post, which (erroneously) criticised my usage.

In my original response to our host I took issue with his paraphrasing of the podcast in one aspect: changing "some of the best" to "the best" changes the meaning. I didn't take issue where he changed "on the planet" to "in the world" because that doesn't change the meaning (no semantic difference, no pragmatic difference either). Apart from that—and including any extended idiomatic shades of meaning—I disagreed with their actual claim, and said so.

 

[TonyJZX]

i dont like how defensive those guys get over there and it shows to their apparent vulnerabilities

over here if you want to rile people up its going to be about power cables or audio network switches or 12g vs 18g or ESS vs AKM or power conditioners or cable lifters or paul mcgowan or danny or SU-1 listener fatigue

these are fundamental things that just about everyone here should agree on

over there it about Amir trying to... promote his own site... like WTF... this is being territorial for no reason... and i doubt its even that guys site... its just that their safe space cant be disturbed... and there's nothing controversial being brought up... its just people dont like a mirror being shown to their faces for obvious reasons.

 

[tmtomh]

I clarified my use of "semantic" in response to your post, which (erroneously) criticised my usage.

In my original response to our host I took issue with his paraphrasing of the podcast in one aspect: changing "some of the best" to "the best" changes the meaning. I didn't take issue where he changed "on the planet" to "in the world" because that doesn't change the meaning (no semantic difference, no pragmatic difference either). Apart from that—and including any extended idiomatic shades of meaning—I disagreed with their actual claim, and said so.

Changing "some of the best" to "the best" changes the meaning - and so too does changing "some of the best on the planet" to "some of the best" change the meaning. Just because one can say the former changes the semantic meaning while the latter changes the pragmatic meaning doesn't mean you were any more correct than Amir was.

 

[Axo1989]

Changing "some of the best" to "the best" changes the meaning - and so too does changing "some of the best on the planet" to "some of the best" change the meaning. Just because one can say the former changes the semantic meaning while the latter changes the pragmatic meaning doesn't mean you were any more correct than Amir was.

I didn't change that, or raise it as an issue. I concluded there was a difference between the original "some of the best" and Amir's "the best" and no difference between the original "on the planet" and Amir's "in the world". You are arguing against something I didn't say, and imagining I'm claiming Amir was wrong where I didn't. Pointless. I'm going to leave you to it.

 

[tmtomh]

I didn't change that, or raise it as an issue. You are arguing against something I didn't say, and imagining I'm claiming Amir was wrong where I didn't. Pointless. I'm going to leave you to it.

Good grief.

Here's what you wrote:

I made the distinction between "the best" and "some of the best" because it is substantive. The best means number one. Some of the best means top ten, top 50, top 100, who knows? I omitted "on the planet" because it doesn't add semantic content. As far as we know, all loudspeakers are on the planet. That phrasing ... doesn't change the preceding: it certainly doesn't change "some of the" into "the" wrt "best".

Your claim: your omission didn't change the meaning, whereas Amir's did.

Not the case. Both changed the meaning, and a plausible argument can be made that the meaning of the original statement leans more closely to Amir's interpretation than your "top 50, top 100, who knows?" interpretation.

 

[Axo1989]

Ok, once more. Not my claim, yours. Refer to my original response. My claim: "the best" is different from "some of the best" which holds if we include the rest of the words in either (original or Amir's) sentence. You can make up imaginary claims till the cows come home based on subsequent discussion. Now it's ignore.

 

[tmtomh]

Ok, once more. Not my claim, yours. Refer to my original response. My claim: "the best" is different from "some of the best" which holds if we include the rest of the words in either (original or Amir's) sentence. You can make up imaginary claims till the cows come home based on subsequent discussion. Now it's ignore.

No - "some of the best" and "some of the best on the planet" have different connotations, and for the umpteenth time, you can't hand-wave that difference away by just declaring that only semantic meaning matters.

Basic accountability for one's claims is so difficult for some folks.

 

[Axo1989]

No - "some of the best" and "some of the best on the planet" have different connotations, and for the umpteenth time, you can't hand-wave that difference away by just declaring that only semantic meaning matters.

I contrasted "the best" to "some of the best". I didn't compare either to "some of the best on the planet". That's your straw man.

Basic accountability for one's claims is so difficult for some folks.

Indeed.

Compare the original "B&W make some of the best speakers on the planet" to Amir's paraphrased "B&W makes the world's best speakers". My contention is that the latter would be a more accurate translation if the word "some" was restored to read "B&W makes some of the world's best speakers". That is the extent of it. You appear to think that elaborate tone policing is required. I think you are beating a dead horse.

 

[JLGF1]

Good God, can we give the linguistics a rest!

 

[Axo1989]

Good God, can we give the linguistics a rest!

Absolutely. I expect this is boring everyone sh*tless. Apologies.

 

[amirm]

FYI Forum owner, Stuart sent me a very kind and considerate message explaining that they are very much in favor of audio objectivity but just can't afford the cost of the measurement gear to go there (understandable). He likes what we do and there is no issue there at all. And that I violated their terms by mentioning our forum for which I apologized. So all is well.

 

[Unground]

FYI Forum owner, Stuart sent me a very kind and considerate message explaining that they are very much in favor of audio objectivity but just can't afford the cost of the measurement gear to go there (understandable). He likes what we do and there is no issue there at all. And that I violated their terms by mentioning our forum for which I apologized. So all is well.

Very glad to hear that. I'm all for honesty in these things. I'm a long-time user on the site and it seems run by decent people trying to do a good job.

I mainly visit AVF for the TV, film and 4K content. It's been clear for some time that there is quite a contrast between the way AV and audio are reviewed and discussed there. For home cinema speakers, it seems there have been some moves to introduce more technical measurement and explanation in reviews - REW measurements, explanations of directivity and on/off axis response and so forth. This has not been historically typical for the site (as I recall) and is a welcome move forward in my view.

I think the audio reviewer gave a more honest explanation in the podcast thread than in the podcast itself. He has earned his living writing things a certain way for a long time and he's going to stay doing it. Fine. No issue at all with that kind of thing as long as nobody claims extraordinary knowledge, which I don't believe the reviewer does. I found some of the arguments on the podcast a bit hollow so I'm glad things were better explained on the podcast thread and on here.

Maybe there's an opportunity for an ASR x AVF collab at some point.