Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

wrote in message
Eeyore wrote:

No. What we're talking abou is the confusion of objective science with
subjective preferences, with the subjectivists believing that 'what they
like' must be inherently technically superior but with no regard to any
supporting science and a wholesale dismissal of the science that counters
their ideas.


If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

Of course if any item of 'audio kit' sounds better it is technically
superior in the strictest sense because it better serves the *purpose*.

Better by whose standard ? Yours or mine ? Subjectivism is no more or less than
opinion.


How could anybody possibly claim otherwise....??

By reference to technical *accuracy*.


I see. you finally did answer the question. In your world the aesthetic
serves technology. In my world it is the other way around. Anything
that gets me closer to my aesthetic goal, the beauty of live acoustic
music, is inherently technically better because the technology is
better serving my goal.




What may sound good isn't neccessarily accurate.



Can't see the forrest for the trees again. Heaven forbid we should
sacrafice accuracy in components for accuracy to the sound of live
music.


Scott

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Laurence Payne wrote:
On 19 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0700, wrote:

If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

In the audiophile world (among others) this is squewed by a natural
desire for the more expensive item to sound better.

I am sure this happens. It's hardly a rule.

It's very tricky to make a good loudspeaker without a fair bit of expenditure
but there's no particular reason for the electronics to be horribly expensive
since it's quite trivial to design sonically blameless circuitry these days.

if you could build high powered SETs that sound like the ones from
companies such as WAVAC and are built as well to boot and sell them for
the cost of mass produces SS amps of similar power you will make a lot
of sales. i don't think you could do it though.




Scott

wrote:

Wally wrote:

The
simple fact that there is variance in the stated preferences, meaning that X
may - or may not - sound better shows that the generalised statement is
out-of-context ********.

No it just means that there is a minority opinion and a majority
opinion with any given preference. Nothing more nothing less.

Hmmmm. Lowest common denominator audio eh ? Or did I get that wrong ?

Graham

Laurence Payne wrote:

On 19 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0700, wrote:

If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

In the audiophile world (among others) this is squewed by a natural
desire for the more expensive item to sound better.

In proportion to the damage to one's wallet !

Heck... if it cost that much it *must* be good !

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
wrote:

Wally wrote:

The
simple fact that there is variance in the stated preferences, meaning that X
may - or may not - sound better shows that the generalised statement is
out-of-context ********.

No it just means that there is a minority opinion and a majority
opinion with any given preference. Nothing more nothing less.

Hmmmm. Lowest common denominator audio eh ? Or did I get that wrong ?



You got it worng because you jumped to a conclusion about merit.
Personally I don't care if I m in the majority or not


Scott

Eeyore wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote:

On 19 Sep 2006 08:10:01 -0700, wrote:

If it sounds better it is technically superior. What do you believe?
that in audio technology serves the aesthetic or that the aesthetic
serves the technology?

In the audiophile world (among others) this is squewed by a natural
desire for the more expensive item to sound better.

In proportion to the damage to one's wallet !

Heck... if it cost that much it *must* be good !


examples of such thinking? Or are you just making it up?



Scott

Keith G wrote:

wrote
snip pointless argument with another member of the 'it might sound ****e
but it measures better' brigade

So - are you now going to argue in favour of high distortion figures ?

Nope just greater sense of realism. You can argue measurements all by
yourself.

And you can't measure arguments aka opinion.


Hmm, uou seem to have a 'basher' on your hands...??

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to know
that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of realism *and*
naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns think we would
*actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than SS)....???

So how do you explain that the recording travelled intact through an entirely ss
recording and production chain - only to be be allegedly 'revealed' by the sonic
purity of thermionics at the 'eleventh hour' ?

Graham

Keith G wrote:

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to know
that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of realism *and*
naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns think we would
*actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than SS)....???

Let me put the following suggestion to you.

Let's imagine we have a superlative recodring but made ina near anechoic
environment.

When played back it sounds 'lifeless' from the absence of natural reverberation.

Would discretely adding an effect in the form of artifical reverb be more or
less 'accurate', realisitic, natural or 'better' ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

wrote
snip pointless argument with another member of the 'it might sound ****e
but it measures better' brigade

So - are you now going to argue in favour of high distortion figures ?

Nope just greater sense of realism. You can argue measurements all by
yourself.

And you can't measure arguments aka opinion.


Actually you can measure subjective imrpessions. It's done all the
time.




Hmm, uou seem to have a 'basher' on your hands...??

It looks like you're doing perfectly fine, but it might help you to know
that some of choose to use valves for a greater sense of realism *and*
naturalness. What makes me die is some of these clowns think we would
*actually* choose summat that sounded *worse* (than SS)....???

So how do you explain that the recording travelled intact through an entirely ss
recording and production chain


Please cite an example of an original performance ever surviving intact
through any SS recording and production chain.



Scott

wrote:

An individual's preference cannot be expressed, or measured, in
terms of "9 out of 10 cats prefer".

no one said it could.

---------------------------------
andy wrote:
Wally wrote:
How do you measure "sounds better"?

You measure it in the same way as other preferences. How do we know
that more people prefer Coke to Pepsi and that 9 out of 10 cats prefer
Kat-E-Chunks?
---------------------------------


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for
dinner.