Good guy Doods is the most recent fly who got caught in the web of clever argumentation and misdirection, and accepted the unacceptable, at least for now. Let's hope he soon breaks free and flies back towards the light.
So someone actually being able to change their mind somewhat and acknowledge the point somebody else has made - usually seen as a good sign in good faith communication - is now a negative thing?
Weren’t you complaining in another thread of people making derogatory accounts of your posts? Why bother with all this strange “ flies caught in webs” characterization and just deal with the sub substance of what I wrote instead?
The web's underlying premise is that we are all about self-pleasuring. And that we come to music in order to self-pleasure.
You are misrepresenting what I wrote (again!)
My post was making no such generalization about “we” (suggesting everybody ).
In fact, I specifically started out stating the opposite, to doodski:
“I think your viewpoint makes some fundamental sense. Do you want to hear the recorded material as precisely and neutral as possible. So that makes your choice of gear make total sense.
I just think other viewpoints can make sense as well for other people.”
So I was clearly acknowledging the good reasons for anybody seeking neutrality to pursue that, and I simply pointed out why someone else can have their own reasons for not being an absolute stickler for accuracy.
If you or anyone else seek only the highest possible accuracy in your system GREAT! Good for you! Mazel tov if you’ve reached your goal! Nobody’s taking that away from you!
For those of us who are more into music for a love of music itself, we want to hear the music as-expressed.
Putting it that way, as usual, smacks of audiophile virtual signalling; “ My aims are more pure than yours, I am only about The Music.”
I find it amazing you keep going down that route, given how many times has been pointed out it’s a stone thrown in a glass house. Most music lovers don’t need to bother thinking about and fussing about audio equipment remotely as much as you apparently do to commune “ correctly “with the music. They would probably laugh at your pretences to be “ all about the music.”
There is, of course, nothing about being into gear that entails we aren’t also passionate about music, whether that’s you with your system or me with my system. And this is a strange thing: why is it that I can acknowledge the good reasons you have for how you choose gear, and what makes you happy, but you can’t acknowledge someone else like me can have slightly different goals than you, and that’s OK?
Not just as-expressed live, but also as-expressed in a recorded production that was vetted in-room as a total musical expression including much nuance and subtlety. We want our gear to not change that. We most certainly don't want our gear to change that in fixed ways that are overlaid onto all the music we experience.
Wonderful! Your choices make lots of sense for you! And for plenty of other people on this site. Bravo.
especially considering that proper experimentation has determined that accurate sound reproduction is optimal to pretty much everyone, because it sounds closest to real instruments and music.
So if I put on a record for instance, and I find myself really enjoying the sound, am I supposed to catch myself, remember your post and remember the science, Shake my head and say “ hold on you! Don’t go thinking you are really enjoying the sound as much as you did a moment ago streaming digital! To play it safe you must subdue this impression so as to bring it in line with The Science - never think you are enjoying vinyl as much as digital!”
Nah. I will keep enjoying my perception of the sound of the record, without making claims that vinyl is a superior medium , understanding there’s always possible bias is playing a role, and not suggesting anyone has to take my anecdotal experience as facts they need to accept.
So it's not like accurate reproduction has even the slightest of problematic aspects, when well mastered.
Ay, there’s the rub. What percentage of music is “ well mastered” and who exactly is to make that assessment? Do you remember how this went last time?
And for bad masters, like Dr Toole says, get a (good) tone control and use it on the odd occasion.
Here we go again. Yes Dr. Toole has talked about employing tone controls (a form of introducing colouration to the signal ) to help with poor sounding recordings.
But the fact remains, there is no objective list of “ recordings in your collection that require adjusting tone controls.” Thus, this is an entirely subjective assessment by the individual listener as to which recordings will benefit from some tweaking. And as Dr Toole acknowledges, the decision to tweak recordings to one’s preference is ultimately up to the individual. Here’s a reminder, from Toole:
Better to have easily accessible tone controls that can be instantly adapted to your personal preference - for any program.”
and
:
“Old fashioned bass & treble tone controls and modern "tilt" controls are the answer and they can be changed at will to compensate for personal taste and excesses or deficiencies in recordings”
And remember that Dr. Toole has extolled the virtues of up-mixing two channel recordings to surround (using good up mixing decoders).
Which is of course departing from accuracy, and as such rather massive type of colouration added to the original signal. But that’s OK, Because colorations the listener perceives as pleasurable or better are allowed for. And in this case allowed for upmixing (departing from accuracy, adding pleasing colouration ) any two channel recording you want.
So in fact, Toole HAS allowed for the listener to alter the sound of ANY recording to the listener’s preference.
At the root of all the web-weaving is a rigid misunderstanding of the realities of the sighted listening effect,
Wrong as always. Any of my impressions formed under sighted listening, are always presented in the context of possible sighted bias. You forgot this so many times I literally had it in my signature for years (“ of course it could always be my imagination”)
And remember: I have blind -tested more of my equipment over many years, than you have. And when you claim I only talk about things like tube colorations in uncontrolled conditions, you know quite well I have found some of my preferences for tube amplification has held up under blind testing, the results posted on this forum.
So your ongoing attempt to paint me as naïve about sighted bias is at this point beyond disingenuous.
Trust me, I've tried, and with good intentions.
You haven’t interacted with what I’ve written in good faith for years. The very post I’m responding to is yet another example.
Why not for a change interact with what I’ve actually written, communicate, rather than depicting me to others as some spider or “ the web” trying to nefariously snare people with deceitful arguments. It’s really not that hard to be civil.
