- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,292
- Thread Starter
- #241
What a shock that you chose to double down!
Regarding "begging the question" did you even read the quote you started with? Read it again, slowly, with some help:
Begging the question concerns an "argument."
Do you see the squiggly thing at the end of my thread title, one of these - ?
That means it's a question. Do you know the difference between a question and an argument?
It was explicit in my OP that I was not making an argument for the truth of my anecdotes. Remember this that you keep ignoring?
Now, that's just accounting for why this question was on my mind. Anyone can simply ignore the above example (it's just my subjective impressions after all) but still get to the issue I'm wondering about..
That little squiggly thing shows up again when I repeat my question in the body of the OP: What is left in terms of speaker design to achieve, in terms of lowering audible distortion and hence retrieving more neutral sonic information from recordings?
Those squiggly marks continued:
"Are we done? Or is there more to achieve in terms of materials and design (drivers, cabinets etc)? Is a very flat frequency response all there is (since resonances will purportedly show up in frequency response)? Or could we take a speaker that measures very even, yet some upgrade in driver material/design or even more reduction in cabinet resonances may yield even higher sonic performance, retrieving some subtle details that were obscured before?"
As I've explained, it's all an open question. The question takes the assumption that speakers are capable of distorting recorded content, which is like starting a cartography question with the assumption we live on a spherical planet. What do you get out of playing a Flat Earther here?
You say you are an AES member. That means you may have knowledge that could bear on the question of this thread, so you could make good-faith contributions conversation like many others are doing. Instead, you spend all your time engaged in "gotcha-chasing" and trying to persecute some imagined case against the OP.
"Don't tell me what you mean, I'll tell YOU what you mean!"
Why not do something useful instead?
That poor, irrelevant strawman.
Regarding "begging the question" did you even read the quote you started with? Read it again, slowly, with some help:
The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.
Begging the question concerns an "argument."
Do you see the squiggly thing at the end of my thread title, one of these - ?
That means it's a question. Do you know the difference between a question and an argument?
It was explicit in my OP that I was not making an argument for the truth of my anecdotes. Remember this that you keep ignoring?
Now, that's just accounting for why this question was on my mind. Anyone can simply ignore the above example (it's just my subjective impressions after all) but still get to the issue I'm wondering about..
That little squiggly thing shows up again when I repeat my question in the body of the OP: What is left in terms of speaker design to achieve, in terms of lowering audible distortion and hence retrieving more neutral sonic information from recordings?
Those squiggly marks continued:
"Are we done? Or is there more to achieve in terms of materials and design (drivers, cabinets etc)? Is a very flat frequency response all there is (since resonances will purportedly show up in frequency response)? Or could we take a speaker that measures very even, yet some upgrade in driver material/design or even more reduction in cabinet resonances may yield even higher sonic performance, retrieving some subtle details that were obscured before?"
As I've explained, it's all an open question. The question takes the assumption that speakers are capable of distorting recorded content, which is like starting a cartography question with the assumption we live on a spherical planet. What do you get out of playing a Flat Earther here?
You say you are an AES member. That means you may have knowledge that could bear on the question of this thread, so you could make good-faith contributions conversation like many others are doing. Instead, you spend all your time engaged in "gotcha-chasing" and trying to persecute some imagined case against the OP.
"Don't tell me what you mean, I'll tell YOU what you mean!"
Why not do something useful instead?
In other words, you assume without proof the stand/position, or a significant part of the stand, that is in question.
Zero controls.
Zero blinding.
Zero level matching.
Zero accounting for +/- 20 db differences in room < 500hz (but it's...investigate the speaker for hiding/retrieving "detail"!)
Zero idea "what is on recording" without transduction, by...loudspeakers. In rooms. That Circle...again.
And now, exact same response as I gave several times in thread already:
That poor, irrelevant strawman.
Last edited: