There is nothing holy about the signal

[Wseaton]

Going all the way back to the OP's original lost, the speaker / room interface is typically corrected in the passive realm via room treatment, correct?

Bill Dudleston at Legacy Audio came up with some crazy speaker designs to combat room coloring, mainly the Focus which used the typical D'Appolito config to create the midfield 'lobing' (sacrifing vertical vs horizontal dispersion) and then more exotics like the Whisper.

I never did like the Focus, nor designs like it. The Whisper was fa more neutral, but used a stupidly complex driver arrangement to cancel out average room interactions. The net result is both speakers were very large, but sounded very small, and were very $$$$.

Room treatment seems a more practical alternative. We also have to realize speaker drivers radiate in all directions unless waveguide / horn loaded, hence wasting power and efficiency and creating unwanted room interactions. Focusing / nulling out this problem with DSP seems to be an increasing trend.

I still think the idea of using multiple driver arrays with each driver having it's own discrete active driver is the way to go, and would yield incredible amounts of control. Or just use headphones.

​

 

[Platypus20]

Like Matt, I find myself a little on the outside, looking in. I strictly a 2 channel stereo person, no HT, no computer interaction, no DSP/EQ. To me the signal is the signal, the signal comes from vinyl, cd or streaming, through a preamp, into a 6 band equalizer (that about 99% of the time is bypassed), into the power amps, to the speakers. I have 3 stereos in the house, 2 have Benchmark DACs, preamps and amps, one with Acarian Alon 4 speakers and the other KEF R3 Metas, the third is Benchmark DAC with a Parasound preamp and amp, with various speakers (still looking for the right pair). Never thought of the signal holy or unholy, its just the signal.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Premier 12 mono blocks - 140w/side.

Here’s the one that sits atop one rack. (The other one is on the floor beneath another rack)

Also CJ Premier 16 LS2 tube preamp, which can be spotted midway down the far rack here:

A lot of pretty gear to ooh and ahh over there in those racks. Nice racks too if you know what I mean.

 

[MattHooper]

A lot of pretty gear to ooh and ahh over there in those racks. Nice racks too if you know what I mean.

Thanks kind sir.

All this stuff is in a separate room from my listening room as I prefer a very clean look in the listening room. But I do enjoy the visuals and the tactile engagement when I’m using this gear.

 

[Miguelón]

4. Ultimately the level of distortion from my tube amps is subtle. It’s significant to me, but in the big picture is not nearly enough distortion to “make everything sound the same” or override the different Sonic characteristics of recordings. So I’m not worried that I’m denying myself insight into how the different recordings sound, which is something I also appreciate.

I could imagine is a very little difference, many audiophiles exaggerate a bit perfection levels on signal, that will be obliterated by room response or harmonics at the cone membrane, the enclosure…

I think is what finally means that signal is not holy in the strict sense.

By my part I have some irrational preferences as every human being, if you are happy with your tube amp, nothing against!

 

[MattHooper]

I could imagine is a very little difference, many audiophiles exaggerate a bit perfection levels on signal, that will be obliterated by room response or harmonics at the cone membrane, the enclosure…

My view is that audiophiles are often making mountains out of molehills. Part of being a hobbyist. I think I’m making a mountain out of the mole hill in terms of the sonic differences between my tube amps and my solid-state amps. And by turn, accuracy-fixated audiophiles can make a molehill out of the difference in accuracy between such amps.

By my part I have some irrational preferences as every human being, if you are happy with your tube amp, nothing against!

Generally speaking preferences are not in principle irrational. Preferences are usually the beginning of rationality. Preferences are what underly our goals, and reason allows us to reach those goals.

There’s nothing irrational about preferring a skiing vacation over a beach vacation. What would be irrational is deciding that booking a beach resort in Jamaica will fulfill your desire for a ski vacation.

So long as you’ve reasoned well about how to fulfil a preference you were being totally rational.

I’ve thought a lot about what I prefer and why, and my choices wonderfully achieved my goals, so it’s rational not irrational. I bet the same would be true when it comes to fulfilling goals that arise from your own preferences.

 

[goryu]

Preferences based on opinions are subjective by definition and therefore outside the realm of rationality. One may attempt to use subjective inputs in a rational or irrational manner but that does not make the preferences themselves a rational choice.

There is indeed nothing irrational about preferring a skiing vacation over a beach vacation. There is nothing rational about it either. It's simply a subjective preference that can't be judged as right or wrong in any sort of logical/rationale framework. There is a difference between a logical decision making process and the underlying inputs used in that process.

 

[Roland68]

Preferences are subjective by definition and therefore outside the realm of rationality. One may attempt to use subjective inputs in a rational or irrational manner but that does not make the preferences themselves a rational choice.

There is indeed nothing irrational about preferring a skiing vacation over a beach vacation. There is nothing rational about it either. It's simply a subjective preference that can't be judged as right or wrong in any sort of logical/rationale framework. There is a difference between a logical decision making process and the underlying inputs used in that process.

If my preference for an amplifier is SINAD, then it is outside the realm of rationality?

 

[goryu]

If my preference for an amplifier is SINAD, then it is outside the realm of rationality?

I edited my earlier statement in which I mistakenly left out the phrase "based on opinions". My apologies. Hope that clarifies things for you.

 

[MattHooper]

There is indeed nothing irrational about preferring a skiing vacation over a beach vacation. There is nothing rational about it either. It's simply a subjective preference that can't be judged as right or wrong in any sort of logical/rationale framework. There is a difference between a logical decision making process and the underlying inputs used in that process.

I disagree.

Some preferences, and here I will substitute “desires“, are arational (not irrational). For instance I may simply have a preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream, it was not arrived at by any deliberative or rational process.

However, other desires can be arrived at rationally, and are even the product of rationality. My desire to start jogging for half an hour each day, or to cut down on the amount of ice cream I’m eating, is a desire that arose from my process of reasoning about what would be likely to meet my wider and deeply held goals of being healthy.

Further: It’s possible to evaluate preferences or desires in terms of how coherently they fit within our larger goal structures, and since many desires are malleable we can make rational decisions about which to encourage or which to discourage.

 

[Andysu]

I disagree.

Some preferences, and here I will substitute “desires“, are arational (not irrational). For instance I may simply have a preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry ice cream, it was not arrived at by any deliberative or rational process.

However, other desires can be arrived at rationally, and are even the product of rationality. My desire to start jogging for half an hour each day, or to cut down on the amount of ice cream I’m eating, is a desire that arose from my process of reasoning about what would be likely to meet my wider and deeply held goals of being healthy.

Further: It’s possible to evaluate preferences or desires in terms of how coherently they fit within our larger goal structures, and since many desires are malleable we can make rational decisions about which to encourage or which to discourage.

i like ice cream and wow they do jaws ice cream , what will they think of next ? i got get some jaws ice cream

 

[goryu]

Your preference, and here I will substitute "goal" of "healthy" is subjective, the process at which you attempt to meet your goal may indeed be rational, but as I said, that doesn't make your preference or goal, objective. What you believe to be "healthy" may require jogging and avoiding ice cream. What someone else considers "healthy" may mean something different.

Your goal structure is subjective, and sure, again, how you attempt to reach your goals may be completely rational. It doesn't make your goal structure itself rational- it's a function of your own personal preferences.

 

[MattHooper]

i like ice cream and wow they do jaws ice cream , what will they think of next ? i got get some jaws ice cream

View attachment 381466

Impressive! You continue to be more obsessed with jaws references than I am!

 

[MattHooper]

Your preference, and here I will substitute "goal" of "healthy" is subjective, the process at which you attempt to meet your goal may indeed be rational, but as I said, that doesn't make your preference or goal, objective.

I wasn’t talking about whether desires are “objective” - they are not they are subjective.
I was talking about whether desires themselves can be rational or not.

And they can be. Since some desires are malleable it offers the choice as to whether to promote or discourage those desires either in ourselves or others (promote or discourage certain desires in society). And this can be based on appeal to logic and evidence and coherence like any other decision.

If for instance, evidence and reasoning has led you to the conclusion that global warming will increase human suffering, which is something you want to avoid, then evidence and reasoning can also lead to the conclusion that desiring to continue to use fossil fuels, or other things that contribute to global warming, is an irrational desire. We have reasons to discourage that desire, and encourage other desires in its place (e.g. using cleaner fuels).

This is how desires can be evaluated as to whether they are rational desires, how about which we can make decisions to have or not.

And as I said, many new desires are arrived at from a process of rational deliberation, making them rational desires to have.

It doesn’t matter that all desires are subjective, nor that at bottom desires are that which give us our reasons for deliberating over our actions. Some desires, objectively, fit more coherently within a system of reason and goals than others.

 

[goryu]

If something is subjective, and you concede that desires, or preferences, or opinions, are indeed subjective, then they can not be at the same time rational and objective themselves- they can be the basis for a rational decision making process but that process is still based on subjective input and thus any outcome of the rational process is still going to be subjective.

Global warming? Real or not real? Good or bad? It's a matter of opinion, arguably, and perspective. Again, a logical argument is based on facts, not opinions. People don't agree on global warming because as of yet it hasn't been been proven to be an objective fact to many.


"This is how desires can be evaluated as to whether they are rational desires, how about which we can make decisions to have or not."

What objective criteria is used to evaluate whether something subjective is rational?

 

[Salt]

35 of 35 Pages actually.
Anyone a breathtaking new input after this to continue?

 

[Blumlein 88]

If something is subjective, and you concede that desires, or preferences, or opinions, are indeed subjective, then they can not be at the same time rational or objective.

Global warming? Real or not real? Good or bad? It's a matter of opinion, arguably, and perspective. Again, a logical argument is based on facts, not opinions.


"This is how desires can be evaluated as to whether they are rational desires, how about which we can make decisions to have or not."

What objective criteria is used to evaluate whether something subjective is rational?

Motivations have a place in things along with rationality. Global warming is something determined if possible by facts and rational processes. What to do with the results can vary due to motivations and what is possible. Those too can be rational in how they are pursued even if the motivation is subjective.

Rationality alone won't work. Choices have to be driven by something. People who had brain injuries that left them fully rational and aware, but devoid of emotion could not cope with life. They never had desire, motivation or anything to cause them to chose to do or not to do something. I think that sort of thing is what Matt Hooper has in mind.

 

[goryu]

People are not motivated by facts alone. Self interest plays a dominate role in most decision making, facts and logic be damned.

 

[Miguelón]

My view is that audiophiles are often making mountains out of molehills. Part of being a hobbyist. I think I’m making a mountain out of the mole hill in terms of the sonic differences between my tube amps and my solid-state amps. And by turn, accuracy-fixated audiophiles can make a molehill out of the difference in accuracy between such amps.



Generally speaking preferences are not in principle irrational. Preferences are usually the beginning of rationality. Preferences are what underly our goals, and reason allows us to reach those goals.

There’s nothing irrational about preferring a skiing vacation over a beach vacation. What would be irrational is deciding that booking a beach resort in Jamaica will fulfill your desire for a ski vacation.

So long as you’ve reasoned well about how to fulfil a preference you were being totally rational.

I’ve thought a lot about what I prefer and why, and my choices wonderfully achieved my goals, so it’s rational not irrational. I bet the same would be true when it comes to fulfilling goals that arise from your own preferences.

I’m not so philosopher as you, irrational means to me the same as “not rationally guided”. So I supposed “irrational” on the context of the goal of transparency.

Once one choose another goal, there’s no irrationality in the preference.

An irrationality in my case is avoiding all kind of information loss. It doesn’t matter if I make a blind test and demonstrate to myself that X lossy format is indistinguishable from 16/44.1 uncompressed, I will always take the lossless one.

 

[antcollinet]

then they can not be at the same time rational or objective.

You are mixing up rational and objective. They are not the same.

If I have a subjective preference for steak over chicken, then it is a rational act to order steak, rather than chicken.

If on a particular day I feel like a change from steak, then it becomes rational to order chicken.