Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

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,

The word is actually used in audio in at least two ways.

One is referring to a property of a system which is rooted in a suitable
form of non-linerarily and thus causes a non-linear relationship between
the input and output of a system/unit.

The other is to the consequential alterations caused by the above property.

The results may be both measurable and audible, depending on the details.

Is that simply a 'concept'? I would have regarded it as a description of
something which arises in physical reality. 'Concept' seems to me to be a
term which sounds more like it was an abstract idea.


Yes, that's right - 'distortion' is a concept, and not a thing.


and not a single or pejorative (in the context of valves discussions
say) fact.

Pejorative would be 'in the ear of the belistener' I guess. :-)


Quite! If (and I say 'if'; I don't know) distortion is the cause of what
I consider to be the 'accurate' sound I get from a valve amplifier and
LPs then it's beneficial.

The reality, though, is that if the output has a nonlinear relation to the
input then it is a 'fact' that the result is being distorted according to
the relevant definitions. This can be measured, and may be audible,
depending on circumstances.

Whether someone likes or dislikes (or can even tell the difference) the
results is up to them. Of course, I'd like them to be able to make an
'informed' choice - hence my previous comments. But that isn't
compulsory... ;-


Yes. I think it may follow that you're led my measurement and I'm led by
the sound I hear. Of course, you have very good reasons for thinking
that measurements with which you're familiar matter. I simply don't
know. Now, is this wilful and ignorant ...

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.

Why are you assuing that enthusiam and enquiry mean wilifil ignorance? I'd
have said the exact opposite. I'm afraid that you are reading into what I
wrote something that I neither said not meant.


You skip from 'nonlinear' audio to 'informed choice' to 'unfounded
claims' to 'wilful ignorance'. I do the first three, but don't consider
myself wilfully ignorant. Delusional but happy maybe :-)

The bit where I would go along (in part at least) with your obviously
strong and informed opinions on this arise around the 'unfounded
claim', and the extent to which the adherent rams it down somebody
else's throat. But then I don't think an unfounded claim is incorrect,
or ignorant - wilful or otherwise.

An 'enquiring mind' would seek to *understand* what they experience - and
also seek to check if their impressions or ideas have any reliability or
are errors. Enthusiam is one of the things that can drive this.


OK, no doubt. 'Understanding' is, again, conceptual. And here I think
it's important to define your paradigm. I work in an applied social
science department, and an 'enthusiastic' row has erupted on the
teaching of research methods following the recent arrival of
environmental scientists. The economics of teaching means that it has to
be taught in one class. The detail's not particularly interesting in the
context of this discussion, but it does serve to highlight how
'understanding' means very different things to different people.

FWIW The main reason I've spent decades studying, building, testing, etc,
audio amplifiers and other kit is that I am largely driven by my enthusiasm
for the results - being able to enjoy the music. My point, therefore, was
that measurements, etc, are very valuable (if you understand them), and
allow you to make more progress.


And modesty no doubt forbids the qualification: 'measurement is not all' :-)

Being able to make measurements and analyse designs, etc, does not prevent
you from also listening to the results. There is no inherent dichotomy
here.

Of course.

If there is a problem it is in the area I referred to.

Which remains a tad fuzzy.

Rob