Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:11:40 +0100, Rob
wrote:

But the measurements aren't a substitute for listening - they are
designed to make sure your equipment is not going to mar your
pleasure.

It strikes me that measurement fixation *does* affect listening.

However not all interest in using measurements and understanding their
meanings would be a 'fixation'.

No I know, just a bit of fun.


For some, a measured anomaly would take away some of the listening
pleasure even if it was inaudible.

So far as I know, there is no law requiring you to read any of the specs or
measurements for any equipment you buy and use. :-)


Surprised it's not in this group's charter :-)

However if you actually *understand* the measurements you can easily make
up your mind if any 'anomaly' matters. Indeed, reading and understanding
'measurements' might save you from wasting time money buying a lemon.

A bit like making sure the glass on the front of your
picture is nice and clear... Of course there are those who like
cloudy glass with a coloured tint, but not those who want to see the
whole of the picture.

d

Some people like their glass 'distorted' so they can see the bigger
picture.

Indeed. However it can be useful for them and others to know the cause and
effect involved. This would then give them info useful when they and others
decide what other 'glass' to choose for specific purposes, or to get
results they would feel are a further improvement.

Interestingly, your analogy also implicitly assumes the 'people' know
that the result *is* being 'distorted' by the 'glass', rather than
assuming that what they see is what they'd get if the glass were absent
and their view was direct. The snag in audio is that many people may
have no such awareness, and indeed, no chance to do the equivalent
of seeing the view directly.

Another snag is that in the case of audio there may be many thousands
of different 'pictures' to 'view' and you might like some 'distorted'
by a specific 'glass', but other 'distorted' in other ways. So perhaps
this is simply another attempt at analogy that falls apart once you
try to use it at more that a trivial level. ;-


May well. My point was to emphasise that 'distortion' is a concept, and
not a single or pejorative (in the context of valves discussions say) fact.

More generally...

The problem with wilful ignorance is that it gives you no guide if you ever
need to change anything. Similarly, it is no help to anyone else who is
interested in the results you got. Nor does it tell anyone if what is
claimed is for the reasons claimed, or is even real rather than delusional.

I suppose I am old-fashioned. I prefer education and understanding to
ignorance, and I prefer views based on reliable evidence. Indeed, I seem to
get a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction out of learning, understanding,
etc. My experience thus far is that this has helped me to design/choose/use
equipment to allow me to enjoy recorded and broadcast music. I have also
repeatedly found that ideas presented in claims by people have no
foundations, so would probably have wasted my time and impeded my being
able to get to where I have in terms of enjoying the results if I hadn't
had the old-fashioned approach of using measurements, understanding, etc,
to try and find my way though the claims. In my experience this has
complimented listening very well.

So, no, I'm afraid I am not personally a great fan of wilful ignorance as a
policy of choice.


That's fine in the main, of course - it's your world and it suits you
(and probably many others). I'm not so happy, though, with lumping
enthusiastic commentary and enquiring minds in with 'wilful ignorance',
which I'm afraid is how I read the essence of what you seem to be saying.


Slainte,

Jim