View Full Version : Get a grip ffs.
Like Marco I heard instruments that were missing with a upgrade
For instance when I changed the baffle to my loudspeakers I heard bass synth instrumentation I never knew was on a recording. I used much thicker baffles helping firm up the drivers. Another example of this when I had a friend around and we were playing around with my system I use balanced mains and the difference in sound for both of us is that the sound without the mains treatment is more slower and less defined (by the way my friend is cable sceptic and this result is repeatable and obvious to all)
But if you reversed the changes, would the improvement/difference also be reversed? That to me is the first stage in determining whether a difference is actual or imagined, leaving aside issues of user expectation or bias.
OK, here is a example in reverse, see if it helps.
Have you seen the film "the sixth sense"?
If so, have you watched it twice? By its very nature, the second watching is a different experience to the first? Has the film change between the two viewing? No.
But if you reversed the changes, would the improvement/difference also be reversed? That to me is the first stage in determining whether a difference is actual or imagined, leaving aside issues of user expectation or bias.
But that assumes the change CAN be reversed, that is, the status quo at the beginning of the test can be recreated. I suggest that memory makes this impossible, so your requirement becomes invalid as it can not be achieved.
Simply replacing the object under test, does not in itself guarantee that the initial conditions are replicated, in that the mental "state" of the test subject must be taken into account.
Another crude example, lets say we decide to find if its possible to tell the difference between a 50dBA sound and a 180dBA sound, for a given subject the difference may be heard once, but its unlikely to be repeated.
But if you reversed the changes, would the improvement/difference also be reversed? That to me is the first stage in determining whether a difference is actual or imagined, leaving aside issues of user expectation or bias.
Yes easy to prove with the balanced mains harder to prove with baffles as so time consuming and no longer have old baffles but makes sense in a rational way as drivers are communicating more infomation due to the extra thickness of the baffles . we talking difference between 40mm MDF and 3/4 inch birch ply
With regards to the baffles this is actual music infomation that was missing before and I know the music realy well
I suspect you could measure the difference but heck we never really know
Agree memory can play tricks but we talking about differences that are quite big IMHO
OK, here is a example in reverse, see if it helps.
Have you seen the film "the sixth sense"?
If so, have you watched it twice? By its very nature, the second watching is a different experience to the first? Has the film change between the two viewing? No.
That’s entirely different. Naturally if I’ve seen a film once I will know how it ends, unless I suffer from amnesia, and I won’t know how it ends until I‘ve watched it right through, unless I have extra-sensory perception. On a second viewing I might pick up on things I missed before. They were always there, but now I am aware of them, because I am watching for hints to the eventual plot ending. But, as you point out, nothing has actually changed apart from my knowledge of the plot.
If I have my ears syringed, I will hear things that were inaudible before. If for some weird reason I have the wax reinserted into my ears, the things that had become audible will once more become inaudible. You’re saying that sometimes changing a component enables you to hear things that were previously inaudible, but that they remain audible after the change has been reversed. My view is that therefore there was no actual change. As in the case of the film, the same information was always there and always accessible to you.
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 09:17
Yes.
Without any objective element, how can it be anything other than subjective?
And because of what we know about subjective biases and influences which have nothing to do with actual audibility, until those subjective biases and influences are adequately controlled for, there will always remain ambiguity. And as long as there is ambiguity, one can't come to any firm conclusions one way or the other. At least not in any rational way.
se
hi steve,
ok, so if you realy believe everything in the above quote why are you bothering to continue to contribute to this thread ?:scratch: it would seem that if your mind is set there is nothing any of us who have spent time debating this issue with you can say or do to change your view, that is where the problem lies, and why it could be seen that your motives are less than upfront! debates like this go round and round the hi fi circles year after year and atract all kinds of characters who have their own spin and beliefs on what is realy going on, but the results are always the same, untill we find other methods of testing for what most of us have experienced we will just go round and round and...
A...
That’s entirely different. Naturally if I’ve seen a film once I will know how it ends, unless I suffer from amnesia, and I won’t know how it ends until I‘ve watched it right through, unless I have extra-sensory perception. On a second viewing I might pick up on things I missed before. They were always there, but now I am aware of them, because I am watching for hints to the eventual plot ending. But, as you point out, nothing has actually changed apart from my knowledge of the plot.
If I have my ears syringed, I will hear things that were inaudible before. If for some weird reason I have the wax reinserted into my ears, the things that had become audible will once more become inaudible. You’re saying that sometimes changing a component enables you to hear things that were previously inaudible, but that they remain audible after the change has been reversed. My view is that therefore there was no actual change. As in the case of the film, the same information was always there and always accessible to you.
Ok, fine, then we can leave it there as our views differ.
Steve,
You seemed to be saying that you judge people based on the sonic results they've obtained from their systems. That seemed rather odd so I wanted to see if I understood you correctly, hence the query.
Nope, that wasn't what I meant at all.
What I meant was that I've always found it interesting that those who continually bang on about everything has to be measured before it's considered as real (the pro-science, I would say obsessed, audio brigade), in my experience, often have the worst sounding hi-fi systems because they will rarely implement the use of ancillary items (e.g. specialist equipment supports, power leads, etc) unless their sonic effect can be 'scientifically proven', which is of course entirely their prerogative.
However, when I get the opportunity, I judge the worthiness of what people write on forums about audio (NOT the people themselves!) on the sonic results they obtain from their systems. It's often a great way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - the bullshitters and wind-up merchants from those who know what they're doing, as it were.
So when I visit someone like yourself, who is of the above 'objective' mindset, or hear their system at a bake-off or show, and it sounds like a tuneless bag of rusty nails, then despite their bleating on about science and measurements, and about 'proving' this and that, then obviously their 'objective-minded', 'science-first' system building methodology isn't working too well!!
I then wonder if they had trusted their ears as much as a bloody oscilloscope, and tried some things which superfically may appear as 'foo', then perhaps they might have achieved a better sound from their systems....?
Conversely, when I listen to the systems of people who trust their ears, are open-minded about trying things, the effect of which may not be 'scientifically provable', often but not always, their systems sound very good indeed, and are sometimes amongst the best I have heard.
Therefore, like I said a couple of pages back, I wonder if this is just a sheer coincidence or not? ;)
At the end of the day, all that matters to me is what gives my system a sonic improvement, be it changing a cable, upgrading a capacitor or installing a dedicated mains set-up. I don't give a flying f*ck if the effect of what I've done is 'scientifically provable' or not. As long as I can clearly hear it (after going through my usual subjective testing process), it's real - end of.
Returning to your posting style and presence here on AOS, you'll be absolutely fine as long as you know when to call it a day during 'robust debates' and back off when it's patently clear that your 'opponent' doesn't share your views, instead of individually dissecting their posts in a somewhat combative way, like a dog with a bone, as you've done up until now.
Also, I'd like to see evidence of your contributions to other discussions to convince me that you're not just here on a jolly to 'wind-up' the subjectivists.
So let's move forward and see if you can become an asset to this community, not an irritant, which the sense of humour in your welcome post appears to hint at :)
Marco.
hi steve,
ok, so if you realy believe everything in the above quote why are you bothering to continue to contribute to this thread ?:scratch: it would seem that if your mind is set there is nothing any of us who have spent time debating this issue with you can say or do to change your view, that is where the problem lies, and why it could be seen that your motives are less than upfront! debates like this go round and round the hi fi circles year after year and atract all kinds of characters who have their own spin and beliefs on what is realy going on, but the results are always the same, untill we find other methods of testing for what most of us have experienced we will just go round and round and...
A...
It is, actually, very like an atheist debating the existence of God with a Christian; both believe they are right, neither will change their position, and neither can prove the other wrong.
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 09:33
It is, actually, very like an atheist debating the existence of God with a Christian; both believe they are right, neither will change their position, and neither can prove the other wrong.
not quite the same,
it would be more like if the christian said i know god exists because he has spoken to me, now first of all the atheist dosent believe in the existence of god and therefore hasnt heard god speak to him, so therefore the christian must have been mistaken, deluded or mentaly ill!
A...
It is, actually, very like an atheist debating the existence of God with a Christian; both believe they are right, neither will change their position, and neither can prove the other wrong.
The first problem I see is the belief that there are "sides" to this.
The second problem is that I think everyone in the debate can regard them self as the atheist, with the others view based on belief instead of rational thought.
The first problem I see is the belief that there are "sides" to this.
The second problem is that I think everyone in the debate can regard them self as the atheist, with the others view based on belief instead of rational thought.
I entirely agree, which is why as a confirmed agnostic I am more than happy to settle for 'agreement to disagree' as a result of a discussion.
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 09:50
Joe, you are taking a far too simplistic view of perception and how hi-fi works. This is similar to the reactions I used to get from people in response to me stating that a given improvement made the system reproduce pitch and rhythm better. I'd get responses like, was the system reproducing notes at the wrong pitch then, were bum notes being played?
The answer was no. The system wasn't playing bum notes but I was now able to identify the pitch of each note, where each note ended and the next started more clearly. Once I was aware of a particular melody played by, say, a backing musician I could go back to A in an ABX test and still hear it because I now knew it was there. It wouldn't sound so clear but I'd still identify it. Had I not heard B I would never have noticed it in the first place!
Better hi-fi enables you to make more sense of musical interplay. The memory of that interplay stays with you forever. Whilst we have a poor memory for individual sounds, combinations of sound are never forgotten.
When I take a CD to listen to in the car I hear that everything in the recording that I've already been made aware of is there. It doesn't involve me quite as much on an emotional level though because the sense of rhythm and pitch isn't as good. I have to listen a little harder to make sense of everything in that recording. I manage it but that little bit of extra effort detracts from the enjoyment a little. Eventually my attention wanders off the music altogether (even if the vehicle is stationary) whereas as on the home system it can keep my attention for longer because the resolution of interplay is more effortless.
The point I was trying to make about optical illusions (and Steve's chessboard puzzle served the purpose nicely) was that in order to be sure that your perception of something isn't fooling you, you need more than one frame of reference. How many people here could eventually see that the two shades of grey were actually the same and how did you achieve this? You didn't need to take RGB measurements.
Another analogy is to imagine you discover that you need to wear spectacles following an eye test at the opticians. You put your new glasses on and you can see things more clearly and notice things you hadn't before. You can even read the words on a page in front of you.
Now remove the spectacles. Everything looks a bit blurred but you can still see everything. After all, you aren't exactly blind without your glasses as it wasn't until you had an eye test that you realised that your eyesight was at all defective.
Now look at those words on the page without your glasses. You can read them because you know what is written.
I entirely agree, which is why as a confirmed agnostic I am more than happy to settle for 'agreement to disagree' as a result of a discussion.
IPU be praised :-)
Returning to your posting style and presence here on AOS, you'll be absolutely fine as long as you know when to call it a day during 'robust debates' and back off when it's patently clear that your 'opponent' doesn't share your views, instead of individually dissecting their posts in a somewhat combative way, like a dog with a bone, as you've done up until now.
Double edged sword!
It would be nice if the 'subjectivists' knew when to 'back off' too! ;)
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 10:18
Agreeing to disagree is a bit of a fudge though. It's like saying, "let's not talk about it then."I find fence-sitters more irritating than opponents. OK, you take a balanced view, you consider both sides. Then you reach a conclusion which you may re-examine later, for sure.
I'll say this though, if you aren't comfortable with the accuracy of the information received via your sensory inputs, you are wasting your money on expensive hi-fi or expensive food and wine, unless of course you only buy such things as an expression of your social standing.
Unfortunately, money doesn't buy good taste ;)
Stratmangler
26-08-2010, 10:19
Unfortunately, money doesn't buy good taste ;)
It doesn't necessarily buy good hifi either.
It doesn't necessarily buy good hifi either.
And often doesn't! ;)
I'll say this though, if you aren't comfortable with the accuracy of the information received via your sensory inputs, you are wasting your money
I agree... mostly.
However, it would be nice to know why a change has produced a perceived improvement. How is one to make further advances in the absence of understanding? :)
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 10:32
Chris, Mike,
Agreed!
Agreeing to disagree is a bit of a fudge though. It's like saying, "let's not talk about it then."I find fence-sitters more irritating than opponents.
Agreeing to disagree prevents such unpleasantnesses as wars, religious massacres and witch hunts. Even if these can be averted, endless circular discussions from those arguing from entrenched positions usually lead to a) no-one changing their minds, b) loss of temper on both sides and c) immense tedium.
I agree... mostly.
However, it would be nice to know why a change has produced a perceived improvement. How is one to make further advances in the absence of understanding? :)
Yes, that is entirely the reason I try and understand. The next time I build something, I have a body of previous knowledge to start with.
Yes, that is entirely the reason I try and understand. The next time I build something, I have a body of previous knowledge to start with.
Good for you, Sir! :)
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 12:16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Toy http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=146637#post146637)
I'm only on page 22 of this thread but when I find this fine straw man specimen I know someone's argument is beginning to run out of steam.
I'll carry on reading now to the end. I suspect there will be other straw men...
If there's a straw man here it would ironically be your very post.
What I said wasn't an argument, straw man or otherwise. It was a query. Hence the question marks at the ends of both sentences.
Further, that query was made within a post that addressed everything else you had said. How could it have possibly been a straw man when the whole purpose of a straw man is ultimately to avoid addressing the point of discussion?
You seemed to be saying that you judge people based on the sonic results they've obtained from their systems. That seemed rather odd so I wanted to see if I understood you correctly, hence the query.
Your representing my query as an argument is a misrepresentation of what I had said and the very definition of a straw man.
Your question was originally rhetorical - hence the straw man.
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 13:35
I gues this where common sense starts to become irrational and where Subjectivist like myself will always struggle, just because we do not measure does not make it any less real
Yes. From the listener's perspective, even if the perceived difference has nothing to do with the audio equipment and is due solely to psychological phenomena, there's no way for our brains to distinguish it as such. Therefore it seems no less real. Because when you get right down to it, even in the case of actual audible differences, it's ALL in our heads. Our perceptions exist nowhere else.
And when it comes to enjoying reproduced music, I'm a pure subjectivist. I go with whatever sounds best to me. I don't care about the reasons why. My only goal is my own selfish pleasure and enjoyment. I have nothing to prove to anyone else and to that end, I never try and pass off my subjective experience as anything more than that.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 14:57
Nope, that wasn't what I meant at all.
Ok.
What I meant was that I've always found it interesting that those who continually bang on about everything has to be measured before it's considered as real (the pro-science, I would say obsessed, audio brigade)...
Wait a minute. What's wrong with demonstrating that something is real before considering it to be real? Not doing that just leads us down the path of myth and superstition. Where does that get us?
...in my experience, often have the worst sounding hi-fi systems because they will rarely implement the use of ancillary items (e.g. specialist equipment supports, power leads, etc) unless their sonic effect can be 'scientifically proven', which is of course entirely their prerogative.
You seem to have a rather strong, negative bias against such individuals from the start (you openly demean them). You don't think this may effect your judgment of their audio systems? I know I wouldn't want someone sitting on a jury who had such a strong negative bias against me.
However, when I get the opportunity, I judge the worthiness of what people write on forums about audio (NOT the people themselves!) on the sonic results they obtain from their systems. It's often a great way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff - the bullshitters and wind-up merchants from those who know what they're doing, as it were.
Ok.
I judge what's said based on the veracity of what's said, rather than who says it. But that's just me.
So when I visit someone like yourself, who is of the above 'objective' mindset...
I am only of the objective mindset when it comes to objective claims. Whenever objective claims are made, they should be held to objective standards.
Why should this not be the case?
...or hear their system at a bake-off or show, and it sounds like a tuneless bag of rusty nails, then despite their bleating on about science and measurements, and about 'proving' this and that, then obviously their 'objective-minded', 'science-first' system building methodology isn't working too well!!
Again you demonstrate a strong negative bias against such people. To the point it seems to actually be a personal issue for you rather than simple disagreement.
Therefore, like I said a couple of pages back, I wonder if this is just a sheer coincidence or not? ;)
I dunno. But with the negative bias you seem to have against these people, I have to wonder if it's not a case of self-fulfilling prophesy.
At the end of the day, all that matters to me is what gives my system a sonic improvement, be it changing a cable, upgrading a capacitor or installing a dedicated mains set-up. I don't give a flying f*ck if the effect of what I've done is 'scientifically provable' or not. As long as I can clearly hear it (after going through my usual subjective testing process), it's real - end of.
Fine. As long as one stays on the purely subjective side of the fence and doesn't make any objective claims, there's nothing to question or challenge.
Also, I'd like to see evidence of your contributions to other discussions to convince me that you're not just here on a jolly to 'wind-up' the subjectivists.
When it comes to enjoying reproduced music, I'm a subjectivist myself. And I see no reason for any true subjectivist to get wound up over anything I've said.
The only people I seem to wind up are those who would more accurately be called pseudo objectivists. Those who wander over to the objective side of the fence by making objective claims, but then get all upset and defensive when those objective claims are held to objective standards.
That's why I've always disagreed with framing this Great Debate as subjectivists vs. objectivists.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 15:03
The point I was trying to make about optical illusions (and Steve's chessboard puzzle served the purpose nicely) was that in order to be sure that your perception of something isn't fooling you, you need more than one frame of reference.
Yes.
And as it relates to the discussion here, that other frame of reference is adequately controlling for the known weaknesses of subjective perception.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 15:25
I'll say this though, if you aren't comfortable with the accuracy of the information received via your sensory inputs, you are wasting your money on expensive hi-fi or expensive food and wine, unless of course you only buy such things as an expression of your social standing.
Given what we know about the weaknesses of human subjective perception, no one should be comfortable with the accuracy of the information received by their sensory inputs. Such comfort can only come from hubris and the denial of that which has been known and well established for many years.
The question comes down to whether or not one concerns themself at all with the accuracy of the information received via their sensory inputs.
The objectivist does. The subjectivist does not.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 15:28
Your question was originally rhetorical - hence the straw man.
No, it was not rhetorical. It was a sincere, albeit a bit cheeky attempt to understand what it was he was trying to say.
se
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 16:48
I don't think it is fair to suggest that Marco is somehow predisposed towards bias against a system put together by an objectivist. He will more likely speak as he finds - it's as simple as that. He's more likely to say, in the event that the system does sound considerably better than a bag of rusty tuneless nails, is that there is always room for improvement - because there always is!
I don't think it is fair to suggest that Marco is somehow predisposed towards bias against a system put together by an objectivist.
I think (t'other) Steve was meaning that Marco is "predisposed toward bias against" the actual objectivist. He can have a tendency to 'come across' that way at times, erm, as can your good self I'm afraid to say! Sorry. :(
I'll shut up now and get back on my fence! :lolsign:
Oh... and the next 'subjectivist' to mention "oscilloscope" (or even "oscilliscope") will get mine inserted into him! :eyebrows: :lol:
Sorry... I said I was going to shut up.
<runs away> :sofa:
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 17:04
I don't think it is fair to suggest that Marco is somehow predisposed towards bias against a system put together by an objectivist.
Given that he shows a strong negative bias against the individuals themselves, openly demeaning them, I think it is a fair point to bring up.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 17:08
<runs away> :sofa:
Pussy! http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
Pussy! http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
Ooh, where? :eek:
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 17:13
Ooh, where? :eek:
Damn!
Wasn't expecting such a good retort.
Let me regroup. :lol:
se
I think Marco is eaisly misunderstood
In fact he has a wonderful sense of system empathy (I was once a diy show where I saw this first hand) and very good understanding of how to get the best out of a system. Marco is simply calling it how he hears it
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 17:21
I think Marco is eaisly misunderstood
In fact he has a wonderful sense of system empathy (I was once a diy show where I saw this first hand) and very good understanding of how to get the best out of a system. Marco is simply calling it how he hears it
I'm not talking about what he claims to hear. I'm talking about his demeaning of the individuals themselves.
se
Marco not demeaning passionate yes demeaning no
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 17:38
OK, so you think Marco and possibly I too are demeaning towards objectivists themselves. That would be ad hom. We don't do that. We just think that objectivists tend to negate the whole raison d'etre for buying into high fidelity and then choosing to improve the experience. Note that last word!
If you can't allow the experience itself to be the final arbiter you may as well give up.
It is also worth noting the results of a poll on another British site that demonstrated that the subjectivist approach is the one favoured by 80% of people who purchase hi-fi. The other 20% would seem to account for 80% of the noise on audio forums - apart from this one!
If you can't allow the experience itself to be the final arbiter you may as well give up.
It is also worth noting the results of a poll on another British site that demonstrated that the subjectivist approach is the one favoured by 80% of people who purchase hi-fi. The other 20% would seem to account for 80% of the noise on audio forums - apart from this one!
Again, I mostly agree... but see post #269 please. :)
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 17:46
Mike, just so that you know, my last post was directed at t'other Steve.
I'm off to get Mike a nice stiff rug to drape over that fence to save him getting a sore arse :eek:
What would you say to someone who's system sounds shit to your ears, would you just walk away and say nothing, or would you comment on how shit it sounds (to you), would you then intervien and attempt to give them the wisdom of your knowledge and try to get the best out of what they have got by tweaking it with cables, stands, feet etc, now depending how they react will they thump you one thus being an objectivist or will they say yes go head and tweak thus being a subjectivist.
Talking bollocks again arnt i
Having an open mind is what and where i come from but still require evidence that can be proved by the best measuring devices i have which are my aging lugholes, these change for most of us a we get older so our systems change to some degree along the way to compensate or improve
Mike, just so that you know, my last post was directed at t'other Steve.
I'm off to get Mike a nice stiff rug to drape over that fence to save him getting a sore arse :eek:
No need matey... my arse is leather clad! :lol:
Hang on, have I wandered into the wrong forum? :lolsign:
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 17:52
Mike, I in turn refer you to the following post, #170 :p
Based on my having met some of the industry luminary designers of the last 40 years or so, I'd respectfully suggest that they, by and large, used a thoroughly objective approach to their designs. How the heck could undisputed all time classics such as the Quad ELS's, the Radford valve amps with such carefully designed transformers, Epos ES14's, the drivers of which were designed using tons of maths long before CAD was affordable and even the SL12** turntables you lot wet yourselves over be designed if it wasn't for a sound and very thorough objective approach. Indeed, all the Timestep mods have published objective reasons as to what their products do what they do and, unlike typical audio numpty subjectivist findings, WHY these designs do what they do. I'm not saying it's the only way, but a decent, stable and carefully researched design is an essential starting point, which can then be fine-tuned to suit.
Mike, I in turn refer you to the following post, #170 :p
I'll take a look... :ner:
Reid Malenfant
26-08-2010, 18:01
What would you say to someone who's system sounds shit to your ears, would you just walk away and say nothing, or would you comment on how shit it sounds (to you), would you then intervien and attempt to give them the wisdom of your knowledge and try to get the best out of what they have got by tweaking it with cables, stands, feet etc, now depending how they react will they thump you one thus being an objectivist or will they say yes go head and tweak thus being a subjectivist.
I have said that before about a good friends system, the thing was he agreed with me :eyebrows: He's a chap that has some hearing deficiencies in the treble end & yet couldn't get on with a pair of NS1000 driven by a Krell Pre & power amp (KRC-HR & KSA80). He picked up these absolutely bloody awful Escalante Pinyon speakers (£7000 when new) & they sounded terrible :doh:
I kid you not a giveaway pair of Hitachi speakers sounded better :eyebrows: I really am not kidding!
Anyway he gets rid of them at a loss & starts hunting for something decent. I suggested he look for a pair of ATC as these have decent bass & a soft dome tweeter that won't upset him. He buys a pair of SCM20SL for a reasonable price & is blown away :) Best money i ever spent he says, only thing is I could do with a more powerful amp he says. Well they aren't the most sensitive speakers in the world ;) So he sells his KSA80 & i'm assuming he was using a NAD S200 to power them for a while.
The next i hear is he thinks the ATCs have no midrange & he's going to get rid of them & buy some 3 ways :mental:
There is no pleasing some people :lolsign:
Mike, I in turn refer you to the following post, #170 :p
OK... it sez:
If you're talking about the colors, no, there isn't. They are two different colors, not one, as has previously been pointed out.
And I'll confess, you've completely lost me! :confused:
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:03
Marco not demeaning passionate yes demeaning no
I disagree.
When he says stuff like this:
So when I visit someone like yourself, who is of the above 'objective' mindset, or hear their system at a bake-off or show, and it sounds like a tuneless bag of rusty nails, then despite their bleating on about science and measurements, and about 'proving' this and that, then obviously their 'objective-minded', 'science-first' system building methodology isn't working too well!!
He's being demeaning. I can't see any other purpose in saying such a thing.
What's the relevance of how someone else's system sounds to him? I don't know about you, but I don't build my audio system to please anyone other than myself.
And then he goes on to say that their method of building a system isn't working too well. Isn't working to well for who? Obviously it seems to be working just fine for the person who built it. What, is Marco the final arbiter of the proper way for how everyone else should go about building a system?
In comments like that, I see little more than an intolerance and contempt for those who may approach things differently than he would.
It's demeaning.
se
Based on my having met some of the industry luminary designers of the last 40 years or so, I'd respectfully suggest that they, by and large, used a thoroughly objective approach to their designs. How the heck could undisputed all time classics such as the Quad ELS's, the Radford valve amps with such carefully designed transformers, Epos ES14's, the drivers of which were designed using tons of maths long before CAD was affordable and even the SL12** turntables you lot wet yourselves over be designed if it wasn't for a sound and very thorough objective approach. Indeed, all the Timestep mods have published objective reasons as to what their products do what they do and, unlike typical audio numpty subjectivist findings, WHY these designs do what they do. I'm not saying it's the only way, but a decent, stable and carefully researched design is an essential starting point, which can then be fine-tuned to suit.
At last! :youtheman:
This is why I consider myself to be an objective subjectivist. Or the other way round if you like! :)
Without some sort of 'science' being involved non of us would have much of a HiFi system to use!
Marco wouldn't have ended up rich doing this, but he should have spent some years in hifi shops in the 80's and 90's - there were two good audio shops in Chester back then as I remember :)
Marco wouldn't have ended up rich doing this, but he should have spent some years in hifi shops in the 80's and 90's - there were two good audio shops in Chester back then as I remember :)
He might have still been in Scotch-land back then... ;)
I disagree.
When he says stuff like this:
So when I visit someone like yourself, who is of the above 'objective' mindset, or hear their system at a bake-off or show, and it sounds like a tuneless bag of rusty nails, then despite their bleating on about science and measurements, and about 'proving' this and that, then obviously their 'objective-minded', 'science-first' system building methodology isn't working too well!!
He's being demeaning. I can't see any other purpose in saying such a thing.
What's the relevance of how someone else's system sounds to him? I don't know about you, but I don't build my audio system to please anyone other than myself.
And then he goes on to say that their method of building a system isn't working too well. Isn't working to well for who? Obviously it seems to be working just fine for the person who built it. What, is Marco the final arbiter of the proper way for how everyone else should go about building a system?
In comments like that, I see little more than an intolerance and contempt for those who may approach things differently than he would.
It's demeaning.
se
Well I met him so we can agree to differ Anyway I let Marco stand up for himself he is more than able
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:22
We just think that objectivists tend to negate the whole raison d'etre for buying into high fidelity and then choosing to improve the experience. Note that last word!
Tend to negate it for whom exactly? For you? How can they possibly do such a thing?
I'd like to think that the whole raison d'etre of buying ANY audio system is the pleasure and enjoyment of the person who bought it. And if they're happy with it, WHO CARES? How is that of any consequence to you?
If you can't allow the experience itself to be the final arbiter you may as well give up.
Again, if they're happy with the experience, WHO CARES?
You seem to be terribly uncomfortable with the notion that others may take different approaches and have different priorities, tastes and preferences. Why is that? How does it affect you in any way, shape or form?
It is also worth noting the results of a poll on another British site that demonstrated that the subjectivist approach is the one favoured by 80% of people who purchase hi-fi. The other 20% would seem to account for 80% of the noise on audio forums - apart from this one!
Great.
Your point?
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:31
What would you say to someone who's system sounds shit to your ears, would you just walk away and say nothing, or would you comment on how shit it sounds (to you), would you then intervien and attempt to give them the wisdom of your knowledge and try to get the best out of what they have got by tweaking it with cables, stands, feet etc, now depending how they react will they thump you one thus being an objectivist or will they say yes go head and tweak thus being a subjectivist.
I don't use my particular tastes and preferences to judge those of others. If they're happy with what they have, I'm happy. I also don't expect my personal tastes and preferences to be "right" for anyone else but myself. So to that end, I don't try to tell anyone anything.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:34
Well I met him so we can agree to differ...
I haven't met him. I'm just going by what he's said in this forum.
se
Never criticize a man’s Hi Fi or missus. He may end up wanting yours and give you his :eek:
I usually look for the best but if its about a exchange of ideas then more than happy to make suggestions.... its then up to them if they take it
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 18:40
Oops sorry, I meant #270. :doh:
Never criticize a man’s Hi Fi or missus. He may end up wanting yours and give you his :eek:
:D
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:46
I usually look for the best but if its about a exchange of ideas then more than happy to make suggestions.... its then up to them if they take it
Yeah. Though I'm a bit uncomfortable even with that. I mean, peoples' tastes and preferences vary so widely, there's really not much assurance that one person's suggestion will be any better than anyone else's.
There's really no substitute for trying things for oneself and making up one's own mind.
se
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 18:48
HI ALL,
i realy have no idea where this thread is going, or even how it started but to be honest in all the posts i have read today it just seems to be going round and round...i just hope it gets to somewhere positive soon, i had hoped that DSJR's post had broken through the ice and for a few moments there was a glimer of hope of subjectivists and objectivists actualy agreeing on something but looks like it just isnt meant to be, or is it ?:confused:
A...
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:50
Never criticize a man’s Hi Fi or missus. He may end up wanting yours and give you his :eek:
No shit? http://www.q-audio.com/images/eek.gif
*runs off to criticize Michael Douglas' wife...*
se
HI ALL,
i realy have no idea where this thread is going, or even how it started but to be honest in all the posts i have read today it just seems to be going round and round...i just hope it gets to somewhere positive soon, i had hoped that DSJR's post had broken through the ice and for a few moments there was a glimer of hope of subjectivists and objectivists actualy agreeing on something but looks like it just isnt meant to be, or is it ?:confused:
A...
I'm actually finding it quite interesting. Thought provoking even! :)
What's your stance on the Obv v's Sub thing anyway? ;)
Oops sorry, I meant #270. :doh:
Pfffffft.... I'll take another look! ;)
Yeah. Though I'm a bit uncomfortable even with that. I mean, peoples' tastes and preferences vary so widely, there's really not much assurance that one person's suggestion will be any better than anyone else's.
There's really no substitute for trying things for oneself and making up one's own mind.
se
Totally agree and will usually suggest that too All you can say this works for me and give it try I am not professional just someone who loves music and willing to share
So for instance I will usually say good clean mains really work for me but try it first as sometimes has little effect
I am totally at one with people having a different view/taste to me
For me forums are about sharing knowledge expressing views occasionally helping someone and havinga bit of banter
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 18:56
I'm actually finding it quite interesting. Thought provoking even! :)
What's your stance on the Obv v's Sub thing anyway? ;)
no comment!!!:eek:
seriously though i am of a strong mindset and i just make equipment and systems that work for me, if others hear what i hear and like what they hear then thats a good indication that i am doing something right, but then again maybe not!:rolleyes:
A...
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 18:58
...i had hoped that DSJR's post had broken through the ice and for a few moments there was a glimer of hope of subjectivists and objectivists actualy agreeing on something but looks like it just isnt meant to be, or is it ?:confused:
It's not a subjectivist/objectivist disagreement. It's a pseudo objectivist/objectivist disagreement.
se
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 19:00
Totally agree and will usually suggest that too All you can say this works for me and give it try I am not professional just someone who loves music and willing to share
So for instance I will usually say good clean mains really work for me but try it first as sometimes has little effect
I am totally at one with people having a different view/taste to me
Groovy!
We're pretty much of the same outlook.
se
Oops sorry, I meant #270. :doh:
Erm, well... it doesn't exactly expand or elaborate on:
However, it would be nice to know why a change has produced a perceived improvement. How is one to make further advances in the absence of understanding? :)
Or does it?
The point I was trying to make was there needs to be some objective involvement with HiFi otherwise it would never develop. Or even exist in the first place for that matter!
I guess I don't understand the apparent anti objectivist views that are (too?) often expressed here and elsewhere! :confused:
The subjective camp is at least as vociferous as the objective camp... and there's just no need for it IMHO. From either party!
Reid Malenfant
26-08-2010, 19:02
I'm beginning to think that all this is totally irrelevant :eyebrows:
Objectivity & subjectivity are going to play a major part in the design of decent hifi gear, not so much in massed produced stuff where it'll likely be more objective.
For instance take a solid state amplifier. Depending on amplifier class there will be more or less objective & subjective views before any design takes place.
Lets assume we are going to design a class A power amp :doh: We have a couple of choices here, we can make a push pull amp or a single ended amp. If single ended is chosen then we know we'll be dissipating double what a push pul output stage does. Different types of distortion will be generated though & one is going to inherently be more musical than the other. The single ended stage should win here due to it naturally producing more even harmonics than odd.
Some people like loads of overall feedback, objectively this would be the way to go to get the least distortion. However judicious use of local feedback to make a stage linear & using far less overall feedback can result in a far better sounding bit of kit even if it doesn't measure as well as the amp with loads of overall feedback.
Testing and everything is fine & of course it needs to be done! This is objectivity. However at the end of the day good hifi isn't just designed & that's the end of it :eyebrows: It gets listened to & then tweaked by the manufacturer to get it sounding how they want it to, that's the subjective bit.
It may be something like a slight rearrangement of the PCB or altering the gain of a single stage or increasing the current through a long tailed pair to lower noise or decrease DC offset at the output.
But both systems are bound to be used to design a good bit of hifi kit :)
Niether can do a lot without the other, they are both involved or the simple fact is everything would sound the same :eyebrows:
Cool post Mark Generally I would guess most manufactures worth their salt would use both subjective and objectives approaches
StanleyB
26-08-2010, 19:17
For instance take a solid state amplifier. Depending on amplifier class there will be more or less objective & subjective views before any design takes place.
Lets assume we are going to design a class A power amp :doh: We have a couple of choices here, we can make a push pull amp or a single ended amp.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing :rolleyes:. There are numerous Push-pull designs. Some with no crossover distortions whatsoever.
There are also amplifiers without any negative feedback.
There are also amplifiers without any negative feedback.
Indeed. I use one! :)
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 19:20
I guess I don't understand the apparent anti objectivist views that are (too?) often expressed here and elsewhere! :confused:
Well to be fair, there are some objectivists who are downright assholes. Who can't stand the thought of people buying expensive audio gear and feel that it's their duty to save people from themselves.
se
Reid Malenfant
26-08-2010, 19:22
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing :rolleyes:. There are numerous Push-pull designs. Some with no crossover distortions whatsoever.
There are also amplifiers without any negative feedback.
Yes i'm quite aware of that :eyebrows: I didn't want the post to be over long so i picked one thing, i don't want to bore people you know :rolleyes: There is such a thing as over doing things ;)
I do hope you aren't implying that i'm stupid :eek:
Well to be fair, there are some objectivists who are downright assholes. Who can't stand the thought of people buying expensive audio gear and feel that it's their duty to save people from themselves.
Very true...
S'why I said:
and there's just no need for it IMHO. From either party!
;)
StanleyB
26-08-2010, 19:23
Well to be fair, there are some objectivists who are downright assholes. Who can't stand the thought of people buying expensive audio gear and feel that it's their duty to save people from themselves.
I object to you calling people like me assholes :steam:. It's my duty to offer customers far cheaper solutions that can match or even outperform their expensive equivalents.
I object to you calling people like me assholes :steam:. It's my duty to offer customers far cheaper solutions that can match or even outperform their expensive equivalents.
Eh?... where did he say that? :scratch:
Well to be fair, there are some objectivists who are downright assholes. Who can't stand the thought of people buying expensive audio gear and feel that it's their duty to save people from themselves.
se
I think Stan means this but do not think Steve was having a pop at Stan. I think Steve was talking about those Objectivist that sometimes over step the mark and rubbish peoples systems Stan is always a gentleman here
I'm beginning to think that all this is totally irrelevant :eyebrows:
SO AM I
Good woman wanted with own Hifi, please send picture of Hifi
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 19:31
SO AM I
Good woman wanted with own Hifi, please send picture of Hifi
:eek::lol::lol::lol:
I'm beginning to think that all this is totally irrelevant :eyebrows:
It probably was as soon as SATA cables were mentioned! ;)
Anyone remember that? :lol:
Hi Mike,
The point I was trying to make was there needs to be some objective involvement with HiFi otherwise it would never develop. Or even exist in the first place for that matter!
Indeed; I completely agree, which is why I wrote this way back on page 19:
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why people like audio equipment designers and manufacturers need to obsess about such things [objective measurement], but as an ordinary punter and end user of a product, why can't we just relax, trust our ears, accept what they tell us, and then simply enjoy the sonic benefits of our chosen purchases without fear of ridicule or the need to 'scientifically prove' these things to others who unfortunately don't have the same faith in their senses?
What I don't get is why ordinary people, who have no interest or connection whatsoever with equipment design (either professionally or via DIY), would be overly concerned with, as you call it, "objective involvement"?
Most ordinary people I know who are into hi-fi and music just trust their ears and leave it at that, without the need for any 'scientific proof' for what they hear. That is the norm for anyone I know.
Don't get me wrong, neither they nor I automatically accept what we hear when assessing effects in audio, without some form of subjective testing first, but after we are satisfied that what we're hearing is real, we need no further 'proof' and just simply kick back and enjoy our tunes sounding better than ever, completely relaxed and comfortable about the situation.
I guess that I find it a little bizarre and somewhat unnatural that people aren't able to have faith in their senses, and are worrying that their ears are continually being 'fooled'. Yes, of course it happens sometimes, we're only human, and thus fallible creatures, but there comes a point when you have to believe what you're experiencing in life is real (with hi-fi or anything else), or otherwise you’d end up in a bloody mental home! ;)
Marco.
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 20:11
I object to you calling people like me assholes :steam:. It's my duty to offer customers far cheaper solutions that can match or even outperform their expensive equivalents.
You're not the sort of person I had in mind.
At least I don't believe you are.
Do you go around telling people that all cables sound the same? Do you berate and belittle anyone who spends more than $10 on cables?
If not, then you're not the sort of person I had in mind.
se
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 20:25
I'm thinking that Steve is an ok guy. We leave the designers to build gear that measures accordingly on the bench and will work reliably and safely. Then as punters we makes our choice based on what our ears tell us secure in the knowledge that the kit has been well designed, so yes, you need both.
A chef needs to follow a recipe in terms of ingredients, qualities and quantities thereof and timing but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. When my gear goes to Anthony's for a service it goes on the test bench, measures fine and then it goes into the system with some music for the final test.
You do need both. The point I think is that you cannot just RELY on the measurements alone. You also need to know what to listen for and that takes some experience.
Marco,
I would be outraged if someone called me 'ordinary' without my permission! :lol:
Seriously though, I find it slightly disturbing that some would call into question the 'objective' viewpoint of those who are 'into' HiFi. It simply would not exist without at least some objective input!
You yourself would not try to recommend and 'upgrade' to someones system without at least a minimum of objective data. Here I'm thinking (for example) of matching an amplifier with a pair of loudspeakers, or a cartridge with a SUT/phono stage!
As for designing a piece of equipment, it would be almost impossible! It all starts with objective data. (same scenario) Lets build an amp... What output do we want? What price range are we looking at. etc. etc. All objective data.
Once it's built, then the subjective side takes over... How does the bass sound, how does the midrange sound? etc. etc.
Then the tweaking begins... how does it sound now? Then we go back to the 'objective side... How are we doing on the price side of things, etc. etc.
This whole hobby of ours couldn't exist without both sides of the coin!
I could go on, but I'm losing the will to live. Get me? :lolsign:
I'm thinking that Steve is an ok guy. We leave the designers to build gear that measures accordingly on the bench and will work reliably and safely. Then as punters we makes our choice based on what our ears tell us secure in the knowledge that the kit has been well designed, so yes, you need both.
A chef needs to follow a recipe in terms of ingredients, qualities and quantities thereof and timing but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. When my gear goes to Anthony's for a service it goes on the test bench, measures fine and then it goes into the system with some music for the final test.
You do need both. The point I think is that you cannot just RELY on the measurements alone. You also need to know what to listen for and that takes some experience.
POTD award! ;)
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 20:41
What I don't get is why ordinary people, who have no interest or connection whatsoever with equipment design (either professionally or via DIY), would be overly concerned with, as you call it, "objective involvement"?
Then why do many of them make objective claims?
Most ordinary people I know who are into hi-fi and music just trust their ears and leave it at that, without the need for any 'scientific proof' for what they hear. That is the norm for most people here.
And that's perfectly fine.
I guess that I find it a little bizarre and somewhat unnatural that people aren't able to have faith in their senses, and worry that their ears are continually being 'fooled'.
First, it's not your ears that are "fooled." All the fooling occurs in the brain.
Second, you won't know whether or not your brain is fooling itself until you can adequately control for the weaknesses of human subjective perception.
There's nothing in our brains to distinguish between it fooling itself and actual audible differences. The experience is no less "real" as far as our brain is concerned. Nor can ego and vanity make us immune to it. It's simply part of being human.
Yes, of course it happens sometimes, we're only human, and thus fallible creatures, but there comes a point when you have to believe what you're experiencing is real, or otherwise you’d end up in a bloody mental home! ;)
No, you don't have to believe what you're experiencing is real. And to do so without bringing some objective element into the picture ultimately turns it into religion.
You can, as I have always done, simply not care. Just enjoy the experience whatever the reasons may or may not be. It's the experience that really only counts at the end of the day, isn't it? And if the experience is pleasurable, why does it need to go any farther? It's perfectly possible to simply enjoy the experience without having to adopt any sort of religious dogma.
This is what I have always done and it's neither caused me to go mad, go blind, nor grow hair on my palms.
It's really quite liberating. You should try it.
se
it's neither caused me to go mad, go blind, nor grow hair on my palms.
Dammit! :steam:
I knew there was something wrong! Anyone got a razor? :scratch:
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 21:00
I'm thinking that Steve is an ok guy.
Gee, conceited much? http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
Thank you for the kind words.
We leave the designers to build gear that measures accordingly on the bench and will work reliably and safely. Then as punters we makes our choice based on what our ears tell us secure in the knowledge that the kit has been well designed, so yes, you need both.
A chef needs to follow a recipe in terms of ingredients, qualities and quantities thereof and timing but the proof of the pudding is always in the eating. When my gear goes to Anthony's for a service it goes on the test bench, measures fine and then it goes into the system with some music for the final test.
You do need both. The point I think is that you cannot just RELY on the measurements alone. You also need to know what to listen for and that takes some experience.
Unfortunately, experience doesn't immunize us from our humanity.
Buddy of mine's been a recording engineer for over 20 years. Once spent two hours EQing the final mix on a recording only to eventually discover the EQ he was using wasn't patched into the console. :doh:
The human mind is indeed a strange creature.
I don't understand why some of those claiming to be subjectivists aren't content with being subjectivists and just go with their subjective experience whatever the reasons for it may be and not try and pass off their subjective experience as anything more than that.
se
Steve (Eddy),
Was I talking to you? My reply was to Mike. Yet still you choose to dissect what I've written in the same combative/confrontational way as you were doing before I warned you the last time.......... :rolleyes:
It's really quite liberating. You should try it.
I know what I'd find "liberating", and you're going the right way about it! ;)
I will reply to some of the other comments you've made later, but in the meantime please give whatever I've written that isn't addressed to you a wide berth.
Marco.
I don't understand why some of those claiming to be subjectivists aren't content with being subjectivists and just go with their subjective experience whatever the reasons for it may be and not try and pass off their subjective experience as anything more than that.
Human nature, I guess? :confused:
Steve (Eddy),
Was I talking to you? My reply was to Mike. Yet still you choose to dissect what I've written in the same combative/confrontational way as were doing before I warned you the last time.......... :rolleyes:
Marco,
Chill! ;)
Steve Eddy
26-08-2010, 21:10
Dammit! :steam:
I knew there was something wrong! Anyone got a razor? :scratch:
Didn't your mother tell you not to play with your 300B? Or did you believe your delinquent audiophile friends who told you it was just an old wives' tale?
I've seen it a million times.
Ain't no razor gonna cut through that hedgerow you've got growing on your palms. Think you're going to have to radio in a napalm strike.
se
Mike, I'm perfectly "chilled" (currently sharing a few beers with Snapper, thanks), but Mr Eddy is getting right on my tits, and I'm sorry, I'm not afraid to say so.
If he doesn't shape up, I'm afraid he'll be shipping out.
Marco.
Think you're going to have to radio in a napalm strike.
LOL! The Grumman A-6 Intruders are inbound!
If he doesn't shape up, I'm afraid he'll be shipping out.
Saw that coming, hours ago.
Wanna take a guess at my response? ;)
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 21:26
Bad move to ban him.
Steve Toy
26-08-2010, 21:30
Mike, I think it'll be a bad move to ban him.
Mike, I think it'll be a bad move to ban him.
Yes... so do I. :)
We are in agreement. You seem surprised! ;)
I don't want to ban him either, and I won't, but he has to learn not to turn every discussion he's involved in here into a circular argument :rolleyes:
Apparently, Steve is somewhat well known for having a penchant for enjoying a pointless argument over on the DIY Audio forum........ Well, I certainly don't want that pish here.
Marco.
anthonyTD
26-08-2010, 21:42
Marco,
I would be outraged if someone called me 'ordinary' without my permission! :lol:
Seriously though, I find it slightly disturbing that some would call into question the 'objective' viewpoint of those who are 'into' HiFi. It simply would not exist without at least some objective input!
You yourself would not try to recommend and 'upgrade' to someones system without at least a minimum of objective data. Here I'm thinking (for example) of matching an amplifier with a pair of loudspeakers, or a cartridge with a SUT/phono stage!
As for designing a piece of equipment, it would be almost impossible! It all starts with objective data. (same scenario) Lets build an amp... What output do we want? What price range are we looking at. etc. etc. All objective data.
Once it's built, then the subjective side takes over... How does the bass sound, how does the midrange sound? etc. etc.
Then the tweaking begins... how does it sound now? Then we go back to the 'objective side... How are we doing on the price side of things, etc. etc.
This whole hobby of ours couldn't exist without both sides of the coin!
I could go on, but I'm losing the will to live. Get me? :lolsign:
ordinary, ordinary, ordinary :ner::eek::lol::lolsign:
sorry mike, i couldnt resist it.:eyebrows:
A...
I don't want to ban him either, but he has to learn not to turn every discussion he's involved in here into a circular argument
Erm... sorry to talk out of turn.
But... "He who cast the first stone"? :eyebrows:
ordinary, ordinary, ordinary :ner::eek::lol::lolsign:
sorry mike, i couldnt resist it.:eyebrows:
A...
Err.... Resistance is futile!
:ner:
But... "He who cast the first stone"?
Not me - he brought an attitude with him here which got on my tits (and plenty of others here) from day one, so I responded accordingly.
Anyway, let's leave it there now please and get back on-topic.
Marco.
let's leave it there now please and get back on-topic.
Marco.
Which was? :lolsign:
(and plenty of others here)
Was that 2... or 3? :lol:
Objectively speaking.... of course?
Does it matter how many? Anyway, let's leave it there now and move on.
Marco.
Does it matter how many? Anyway, let's leave it there now and move on.
Let's not! ;)
Why don't we get to the bottom of the matter and put it to bed for a good while?
It would make a change, no? :)
aquapiranha
26-08-2010, 22:42
Let's not! ;)
Why don't we get to the bottom of the matter and put it to bed for a good while?
It would make a change, no? :)
That is a noble idea Mike, but I feel there will never be an end to it and too many people would end up getting upset along the way. Audio is a very personal thing, and disputing one persons opinion can become a very direct insult if you are not careful. I will try to keep away from such in the future
That is a noble idea Mike,
That is something I've been aiming for....
But I'm quite prepared to bugger off if needs be! At the end of the day, this place is just a collection of words!
Life has much more to offer! ;)
It does indeed :)
Mike, you could always join me playing a video game or two ;)
Hi Steve,
That is a noble idea Mike, but I feel there will never be an end to it and too many people would end up getting upset along the way. Audio is a very personal thing, and disputing one persons opinion can become a very direct insult if you are not careful
Indeed.
I have no problem, however, with anyone disputing my opinion, but Steve (E) gives the term 'argumentative' a whole new meaning and doesn't appear to know when to stop!
Also, anyone who trots out this kind of drivel:
Given what we know about the weaknesses of human subjective perception, no one should be comfortable with the accuracy of the information received by their sensory inputs.
And especially this:
How on earth can you question or challenge someone's subjective experience other than to call them a liar or imply that they're lying?
.... I'm always going to struggle to relate to or get on with, and thus arguments with them will be inevitable.
I'm perfectly aware of "the weaknesses of the human subjective perception", but I don't need someone like Mr Eddy to tell me how I should deal with it, and nor do I have to justify to him or anyone else how I deal with it either.
I deal with it in my own way, and if after that I still remain 'comfortable with the accuracy of the information received by my sensory inputs' then it's for a bloody good reason!
Anyway, Mr Eddy is welcome to contribute here, but if we are to avoid any further 'spats', then he must learn to put his point across in a way which doesn't get people's backs up, and also when to know enough is enough, let it go, and simply agree to disagree, just like Nick (lurcher) and Joe did earlier. Any further endless circular disputes will not be tolerated.
Marco.
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 00:41
Would you kindly give me the courtesy of showing where I have made any circular arguments? Or are you meaning "circular argument" to mean something other than circular argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html)?
se
FFS, the evidence is here all over this thread... Scroll back and read!
Marco.
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 00:51
FFS, the evidence is here all over this thread... Scroll back and read!
I know what I wrote. And I see nothing that fits the description of a circular argument.
You're the one who made the accusation. It's not my job to substantiate it for you.
If you can't make your case, then withdraw the accusation.
se
You're doing it right now (arguing for the sake of it) - you can't help yourself! :doh:
I know what I wrote. And I see nothing that fits the description of a circular argument.
That's because you're so used to arguing with people, you don't even realise you're doing it!! I'm off to bed, but no doubt you'll argue with yourself when I'm gone. Enjoy! :goodnight:
Marco.
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 01:02
You're doing it right now (arguing for the sake of it) - you can't help yourself! :doh:
Oh. Then you meant "circular argument" to mean something OTHER than circular argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html).
Why didn't you just say so when I asked the first time?
se
Oh. Then you meant "circular argument" to mean something OTHER than circular argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html).
Why didn't you just say so when I asked the first time?
se
Steve,
You have my phone No... ;)
I've just had a long and pleasant telephone conversation with Steve.
What a very nice man to talk to! :)
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 02:13
I've just had a long and pleasant telephone conversation with Steve.
What a very nice man to talk to! :)
Thank you for the kind words, Mike. And may I return the sentiment. Very pleasant conversation.
se
This thing reads like War and Peace,but for all it's jabs,flaws and finger pointing it's currently the most interesting thread running on AOS.Some audio ,some soap opra and no end in sight.
I mean it's like watching some one put several cats in a small bag and shakeing it till the fur flys.
If there is going to ever be a final consensus to this debate,there is a strong chance it will be aventually reached on this thread!!!
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 04:10
This thing reads like War and Peace,but for all it's jabs,flaws and finger pointing it's currently the most interesting thread running on AOS.Some audio ,some soap opra and no end in sight.
I mean it's like watching some one put several cats in a small bag and shakeing it till the fur flys.
If there is going to ever be a final consensus to this debate,there is a strong chance it will be aventually reached on this thread!!!
Perhaps we should charge admission. ;)
se
I've just had a long and pleasant telephone conversation with Steve.
What a very nice man to talk to! :)
Nice one. Let's hope we see more of that in evidence here, and less of the 'dog with a bone'! ;)
Marco.
My latest copy of Hifi Choice has had the 'back page' column removed, its a far better read now :cool: :ner:
Stratmangler
27-08-2010, 10:25
My latest copy of Hifi Choice has had the 'back page' column removed, its a far better read now :cool: :ner:
Was the removal by your good self, or was it the editor of HFC ?:eyebrows:
Was the removal by your good self, or was it the editor of HFC ?:eyebrows:
Hang on !!!!! all bets are off !!!!.......I have just installed a new cryo cable for me Kettle (Bosch rapide boil)....incredible icing in the cake improvement in boiling speed, steam and flavour !!! I never new that mixing hifi with tea making could be so, so , so zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz:lolsign:zzzzz
StanleyB
27-08-2010, 10:57
But how does it taste? Has the increased boiling speed ruined the flavour?
But how does it taste? Has the increased boiling speed ruined the flavour?
it depends on the subjective quality of the milk
but we are having a blind tasting session, followed by some measurements using our extensive collection of test equipment (the local W.I.)......and a session against the reference linn/Naim teamaker, which will win of course.........:eyebrows:
StanleyB
27-08-2010, 11:06
.and a session against the reference linn/Naim teamaker, which will win of course.
It has not been scientifically proven that flat earth in audio design would show the same benefit with boiled water. But mind you, the increased PRaT from the cryo cable might have something to do with it.
Keep us informed :).
It has not been scientifically proven that flat earth in audio design would show the same benefit with boiled water. But mind you, the increased PRaT from the cryo cable might have something to do with it.
Keep us informed :).
we will, but we are currently getting the entire house rewired with gold plated rubber cable and the new sata cable for me apple mac which will make it nearly as useless as window$ vista......and Im awaiting the arrival of a special blend of green tea wot is being shipped from the master up mount fuji
StanleyB
27-08-2010, 11:19
I have an expensive box of green tea from Taiwan that you can try out as well..
I have an expensive box of green tea from Taiwan that you can try out as well..
excellent, and once the eggs and flour arrives from the organic holistic back to the land supplier I use, we can have a bake off !!!
must dash, the nylon thread on me turntable needs fettling :rolleyes:
The idea that the debate differences between the objectivists and subjectivists can be resolved in a forum debate is rather naïve.
It may be entertaining for some of the readers and participants but I joined this forum in the hope that by the forum founders stating very clearly that the whole Ethos of the forum was subjectively based, contributors would accept this and if their interest in Hi Fi forums was primarily to contest the subjectivist’s viewpoint, go elsewhere. This may also be somewhat naïve.
I’ve read nothing new in this debate; not in content, or debating style.
I can’t see any progress being made.
What I see is a group of men trying to impress with their debating skills which has little to do with the enjoyment of music and the equipment we listen to it on.
What is the point of this debate? Does anyone believe that any of the participants are going to change their opinion?
Why would anyone want to even attempt to change the beliefs of another when those beliefs are so obviously founded on faith, on both sides of the debate?
The objectivists may argue that their beliefs are rational while the subjectivist’s beliefs are not.
The ridiculous part of this is in my opinion is it’s irrational to believe you can change an irrational view point with rational arguments.
I’m what I suppose might be described as an objectivist fundamentally when it comes to audio matters and frankly I couldn’t give a f**k what the subjectivists believe. I don’t have to listen to their systems and I don’t have to spend my money on the products they believe make a difference in their systems.
As for this “my system sounds than yours” business; grow up.
I enjoy reading and participating in Hi Fi forums because I’m interested in the equipment and something that seems to be virtually forgotten about in these debates, a love of music.
Unfortunately, it looks as if I shall have to find another forum to participate in because this one seems to have forgotten that it’s the music that matters, not the debate.
Courtesy of the Yahoo Spendor (BC1 love-in :)) group, I received this posting this morning.
MAYBE this could act as a bridge, because, like 'em or not, the Spendor BC1 was a force to be reckoned with (as was the Quad '57 fifteen years or so before)...
Thanks Royce, I hope you don't mind me quoting this -
"I will give you my opinion.First,The late Spencer Hughes had done
the ground work while at the BBC,as far as I am aware.He would have
the privilege of carrying out 100s of tests with differing cones,
but more importantly,he approached the subject as an "art".
Bextrene had qualities which poly'does not,ie;with bextene you can
change the flexing of the cone wall by making a slight change in
the profile,which is not detectable by the eye after applying
a damping coating.All the cones are produced by male vacuum forming
and by astute control of the blanking size you can influence the
thickness of a cone at the neck area,the vital area for smooth
reproduction.By comparison KEF cones do not have the same texture
in their make-up.This is one area of the process being an "ART".
There are of course,many others,the crossover,and cabinet etc.
No loudspeaker designer worth his salt is going to reveal all his
secrets.Competition is rife.But I hope this helps in some small way.
Royce.
--- In spendor@yahoogroups.com, "hmilstein17" <r3mor@...> wrote:
>
> As per last thread, re-purchasing used BC1's.In 30 years, I have reviewed and/or auditioned hundreds of loudspeakers.
> 1.What is it in the original BC1 design that make it the ONLY loudspeaker that has a "mysteriously floating, viscerally eitherial mid-treble response, particularly on female(operatic) voices?
> 2.Would it be correct to presume Spencer Hughes knew of this quality in the design, or lol, could it have hapenned by chance? I say this because it has never been replicated (to my ears)even in the SP1 with the polyproplyne cone. Even if this is the reason, it does not explain this midrange "phenomenom" of the bextrene cone design.
>
> All well informed responses are welcome!
> Howard..."
This, for me, explains a bit how objective and deep technical knowledge of the subject at hand, coupled with a little bit of "artistic tweaking/fine-tuning" can make a true classic product. I feel that the basic rule books were written donkey's years ago, but some concepts could only be realised with new materials and techniques.
If you want to hear some truly awful but technically excellent speakers of old, I can point you in the direction of many B&W models, which sounded horrid yet measured flat with low distortion. The secret was in getting a good measurement AND the sound quality to match and this is how Spencer Hughes (and today, Alan Shaw [Harbeth]) succeeded with so many of his products. of course there are many others, but I use Spencer as an example as he was a lovely man with a very open mind regarding the FE things going around in the late 70's. I wish he'd lived longer..
anthonyTD
27-08-2010, 13:59
The idea that the debate differences between the objectivists and subjectivists can be resolved in a forum debate is rather naïve.
It may be entertaining for some of the readers and participants but I joined this forum in the hope that by the forum founders stating very clearly that the whole Ethos of the forum was subjectively based, contributors would accept this and if their interest in Hi Fi forums was primarily to contest the subjectivist’s viewpoint, go elsewhere. This may also be somewhat naïve.
I’ve read nothing new in this debate; not in content, or debating style.
I can’t see any progress being made.
What I see is a group of men trying to impress with their debating skills which has little to do with the enjoyment of music and the equipment we listen to it on.
What is the point of this debate? Does anyone believe that any of the participants are going to change their opinion?
Why would anyone want to even attempt to change the beliefs of another when those beliefs are so obviously founded on faith, on both sides of the debate?
The objectivists may argue that their beliefs are rational while the subjectivist’s beliefs are not.
The ridiculous part of this is in my opinion is it’s irrational to believe you can change an irrational view point with rational arguments.
I’m what I suppose might be described as an objectivist fundamentally when it comes to audio matters and frankly I couldn’t give a f**k what the subjectivists believe. I don’t have to listen to their systems and I don’t have to spend my money on the products they believe make a difference in their systems.
As for this “my system sounds than yours” business; grow up.
I enjoy reading and participating in Hi Fi forums because I’m interested in the equipment and something that seems to be virtually forgotten about in these debates, a love of music.
Unfortunately, it looks as if I shall have to find another forum to participate in because this one seems to have forgotten that it’s the music that matters, not the debate.
well said john...
once in a while a fine talker will come along and resurect one of these debates hoping this time it might be the right time to catch people off guard, not so here!
A...
It’s naïve to think that any fundamental differences of opinion can be reconciled on an internet forum, or indeed in any debating context. If I believe that God exists, and you believe the opposite, how is either of us going to convince the other that they're wrong?
Such discussions can however be helpful is in focusing peoples’ minds on what they actually believe, because quite often people (and I definitely include myself here) are unclear about what their own position is, and it’s helpful to have different viewpoints exposed so that we can be clearer where we personally stand.
Where the basic confusion arises here is that people are considering three different but related questions, and sometimes using the wrong criteria to answer them.
1) Has a change occurred? (subjective and objective issues: I think I hear a change, but I might be mistaken. How can I check?)
2) If there has been a change, can it be measured? (objective issue)
3) If there has been a change, is it an improvement? (subjective issue)
anthonyTD
27-08-2010, 14:27
It’s naïve to think that any fundamental differences of opinion can be reconciled on an internet forum, or indeed in any debating context. If I believe that God exists, and you believe the opposite, how is either of us going to convince the other that they're wrong?
Such discussions can however be helpful is in focusing peoples’ minds on what they actually believe, because quite often people (and I definitely include myself here) are unclear about what their own position is, and it’s helpful to have different viewpoints exposed so that we can be clearer where we personally stand.
Where the basic confusion arises here is that people are considering three different but related questions, and sometimes using the wrong criteria to answer them.
1) Has a change occurred? (subjective and objective issues: I think I hear a change, but I might be mistaken. How can I check?)
2) If there has been a change, can it be measured? (objective issue)
3) If there has been a change, is it an improvement? (subjective issue)
hi joe,
thats a realy good point and very thought provoking, but i am sure you will agree when something gets to a point where there is no movement by any party its time to agree to differ and move on...unfortunetly some people seem to get a kick out watching people wind each other up untill one or the other explodes, IMHO there is no place on AOS for such people, and i hope that is one of the main reasons why people find it a more comfortable and rational place to be[ most of the time anyway] than some of the other shall we say less well mannered forums out there!!!
anthony,TD...
Steve Eddy
27-08-2010, 15:52
The idea that the debate differences between the objectivists and subjectivists can be resolved in a forum debate is rather naïve.
There's nothing to be resolved between objectivists and subjectivists.
It may be entertaining for some of the readers and participants but I joined this forum in the hope that by the forum founders stating very clearly that the whole Ethos of the forum was subjectively based...
Yes, that's what I thought too.
From Steve's opening message:
This is essentially a Flat Earth subjectivist forum where we trust our ears in pursuit of recorded music reproduction that gets the feet tapping and/or the hairs rising on the back of your neck and plants a big grin on your face.
I thought that was beautifully put.
Why?
Because when it comes to the enjoyment of audio and reproduced music, I AM A SUBJECTIVIST.
But some here are not.
When one claims that the differences they perceive are real, as in actual audible differences, that person is NOT a subjectivist.
The issue of actual audible differences is a wholly OBJECTIVE issue.
A subjectivist doesn't concern themselves with such issues. Nor do they attempt to pass off their subjective experience as anything more than that. If they did, then they'd be an objectivist.
When someone steps out of the subjective box and makes an OBJECTIVE claim, they can't jump back into the box and say "You can't question or challenge my claims! I'm a subjectivist!"
Doesn't work that way.
All objective claims should be open to question and/or challenge.
se
”When one claims that the differences they perceive are real, as in actual audible differences, that person is NOT a subjectivist”
So what?
I don’t care and I suspect the majority here don’t care either.
Why is it you feel the need to point this out? Do you think the rest of us are too stupid to be aware of this and need some keyboard warrior to point these issues out on our behalf?
Frankly Steve you’re beginning to piss me off.
anthonyTD
27-08-2010, 16:14
There's nothing to be resolved between objectivists and subjectivists.
Yes, that's what I thought too.
From Steve's opening message:
This is essentially a Flat Earth subjectivist forum where we trust our ears in pursuit of recorded music reproduction that gets the feet tapping and/or the hairs rising on the back of your neck and plants a big grin on your face.
I thought that was beautifully put.
Why?
Because when it comes to the enjoyment of audio and reproduced music, I AM A SUBJECTIVIST.
But some here are not.
When one claims that the differences they perceive are real, as in actual audible differences, that person is NOT a subjectivist.
The issue of actual audible differences is a wholly OBJECTIVE issue.
A subjectivist doesn't concern themselves with such issues. Nor do they attempt to pass off their subjective experience as anything more than that. If they did, then they'd be an objectivist.
When someone steps out of the subjective box and makes an OBJECTIVE claim, they can't jump back into the box and say "You can't question or challenge my claims! I'm a subjectivist!"
Doesn't work that way.
All objective claims should be open to question and/or challenge.
se
and thats fine, untill you get to stale mate, which unfortunetly is where we are with this thread at the moment, so where do you sugest we go from here steve??? i am all ears mate!
A...
StanleyB
27-08-2010, 16:19
so where do you sugest we go from here steve??? i am all ears mate!.
The pub :cool:?
anthonyTD
27-08-2010, 16:20
The pub :cool:?
:eek::lol::cool:
Ali Tait
27-08-2010, 17:17
The pub :cool:?
Let's go! :cool:
Let's go! :cool:
doesnt anyone wanna know the result of our tea bag brew off?
oh well......:cool::cool::cool::cool:
anthonyTD
27-08-2010, 18:48
doesnt anyone wanna know the result of our tea bag brew off?
oh well......:cool::cool::cool::cool:
:D
Ali Tait
27-08-2010, 19:12
doesnt anyone wanna know the result of our tea bag brew off?
oh well......:cool::cool::cool::cool:
:lol: Nah,I don't drink tea!
aquapiranha
27-08-2010, 19:20
:lol: Nah,I don't drink tea!
Can't beat a nice redbush! :lol:
Ali Tait
27-08-2010, 19:22
Depends if you're wife's a gingernut! :eek:
aquapiranha
27-08-2010, 19:24
copper boiler? burning bush? boom tish...
I like Tesco "T" - It's more transparent and less harsh than PG Tips with a better flatulence response.
Fine leaf tea: Darjeeling; Assam; Lapsang Souchong: green China tea, or some tea I brought back from Burma. Can't tell you what it's called, is as the writing on the packet is in Burmese script.
Some of the nicest tea I have ever drunk - as good as the finest Darjeeling.
Regards
dave2010
28-08-2010, 11:55
... with a better flatulence response.
:scratch:
More or less? :)
Less is more, and more is less, or so it goes............
The Grand Wazoo
30-08-2010, 23:42
Well, I've spent far too long reading the contents of this thread - I gave up following it properly days ago. While you lot have been getting nowhere in resolving whatever it was you were trying to resolve, I've been listening to music. I think my time has substantially more fulfilling than yours.
Now I'm off for a cuppa Assam - good idea Barry - the only notable thought in this whole sorry mess!
Well, I've spent far too long reading the contents of this thread - I gave up following it properly days ago. While you lot have been getting nowhere in resolving whatever it was you were trying to resolve, I've been listening to music. I think my time has substantially more fulfilling than yours.
Now I'm off for a cuppa Assam - good idea Barry - the only notable thought in this whole sorry mess!
Assam tea from the base of the Hemalayan mountains MMM good tea.
They make it in orange peako too.
I'm going to brew a pot right now,
This thread is overdone.
Perhaps it should be closed and put to bed for good ;)
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 15:27
Perhaps it should be closed and put to bed for good ;)
Sounds good to me.
Good night Jonboy. :lol:
se
anthonyTD
31-08-2010, 18:39
night mary ellen!!:eek:
anthony,TD...
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 19:15
night mary ellen!!:eek:
HA! You got it. Was a bit worried it might not translate across the pond. ;)
You might enjoy this Geico commercial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KajIm9lgImw&feature=player_embedded
By the way, is there any way to embed YouTube videos here?
se
Reid Malenfant
31-08-2010, 19:22
HA! You got it. Was a bit worried it might not translate across the pond. ;)
Are you kidding? :eyebrows: The Waltons were great ;) When i was a kid....
HA! You got it. Was a bit worried it might not translate across the pond. ;)
se
Being that i have been called Jon Boy for most of my life and we now have have four kids the Waltons have been mentioned on more than one occasion :ner:
By the way, is there any way to embed YouTube videos here?
se
CLUE
look at the You Tube symbol in the tool section above ;)
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 19:59
CLUE
look at the You Tube symbol in the tool section above ;)
Yes, I saw that, but the mouseover just says "Wrap [YT] tags around selected text." It didn't occur to me initially but now I realize it's to wrap the YouTube tags around the embedding text.
Thanks!
se
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 20:07
Are you kidding? :eyebrows: The Waltons were great ;) When i was a kid....
Hehehe.
Well you see, here in the US, with the exception of PBS, we don't air any of your programming here. Instead, we rip it off and do our own versions. Often quite horribly. Such as Bea Arthur's short-lived series Amanda's, which was a rip-off of Flay Otters, er, I mean Fawtly Towers. ;)
se
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 20:08
Being that i have been called Jon Boy for most of my life and we now have have four kids the Waltons have been mentioned on more than one occasion :ner:
Okay! Okay! Man, give a Yank a break, will ya? ;)
se
Hehehe.
Well you see, here in the US, with the exception of PBS, we don't air any of your programming here. Instead, we rip it off and do our own versions. Often quite horribly. Such as Bea Arthur's short-lived series Amanda's, which was a rip-off of Flay Otters, er, I mean Fawtly Towers. ;)
se
Remember 'Archie Bunkers Place'? - Rip off from Till Death Do Us Part - we usually get to see both versions over here. Your versions always suck:)
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 23:23
Remember 'Archie Bunkers Place'? - Rip off from Till Death Do Us Part - we usually get to see both versions over here. Your versions always suck:)
Hehehe. Never had a chance to watch Til Death Do Us Part so can't make any comparisons. But I did enjoy All in the Family on its own.
se
The Grand Wazoo
31-08-2010, 23:26
hehehehe............and sometimes they remade their own things as a cartoon.
Sgt Bilko reincarnated as Top Cat!!!!
(..........both were absolutely sublime by the way!)
hehehehe............and sometimes they remade their own things as a cartoon.
Sgt Bilko reincarnated as Top Cat!!!!
(..........both were absolutely sublime by the way!)
Very true - I could never work out if the Hair Bair Bunch was a rip off of Bilko or a rip off of Top Cat - I suspect the latter - in which case it was a rip off of a rip off...
All good though - the invisible motorcycle still makes me chuckle
Steve Eddy
31-08-2010, 23:47
hehehehe............and sometimes they remade their own things as a cartoon.
Sgt Bilko reincarnated as Top Cat!!!!
(..........both were absolutely sublime by the way!)
Or the reverse, as in The Flintstones.
se
Or the reverse, as in The Flintstones.
se
Rip off of 'The Honeymooners' with Jackie Gleason...
Steve Eddy
01-09-2010, 00:17
Rip off of 'The Honeymooners' with Jackie Gleason...
Exactly. It goes full circle I guess. :lol:
se
Exactly. It goes full circle I guess. :lol:
se
'There's nothing new under the Sun' - as they say:lol:
Steve Eddy
01-09-2010, 00:31
'There's nothing new under the Sun' - as they say:lol:
Too often too true!
se
Hi Steve,
Keep up the good work - you're doing just fine now! :)
I guess it's impossible to make an omelette without breaking a few eggs ;)
Marco.
Hello Steve,
I have been watching your presence from a distance it's been a great few weeks. I feel your replies have been exceptional, really good to have a light in the black on AOS these days. Keep up the quality work Steve.
All the best Tony
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 11:11
hi all,
one thing i would like to point out before this thread goes right off the original subject is this,,,
look at post no1 [the begining] and then post no 390,,, those of you who take the time to do this will hopefully get what has been brought to my attention!;)
anthony,TD...
I looked at #1 and #390 and only saw a discussion about cable companys useing cables like bottles of snake oil,I my self have spent thousends on BTW.
Was that your point?
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 12:03
knowing how welder felt about these debates [post 390 ] why did he feel the need to start it!
Look at the very first post in the thread, click on the links and read them too.
Note the disparaging references made to mains cables in particular...
Who started the thread and what was the title they gave to the thread?
Who is the objectivist roaming on a subjectivist forum and the root cause of this 40+page ruck?
Just some food for thought.
anthony,TD...
Hi Anthony,
I know where you're coming from, but I don't read John that way myself, and in fact feel that he's developed into a good contributor, IMO.
I had my reservations about Steve E, but he appears to have 'blossomed' rather nicely, too!
Sometimes it takes a while for people to settle in properly, especially as AoS is somewhat different in the way it operates from other audio forums :)
Marco.
Hello Anthony.
Post 436.
This is a personal attack isn’t it?
Tsk tsk, naughty boy, you’ll make me cry ;)
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 13:18
hi marco,
i take your point and i too agreed with john at one point [as you will see in post 392 i think] that was before i had had time to read the whole thread from start to finnish, anyway no matter, as for steve eddy, i agree i think he will fit in nicely here, we got off on the wrong foot initialy but we have cleared things since and have both agreed to start a fresh.:)
anthony,TD...
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 13:25
Hello Anthony.
Post 436.
This is a personal attack isn’t it?
Tsk tsk, naughty boy, you’ll make me cry ;)
hi john,
its nothing of the sort and not my intention,;) hopefully you will read back and realise why some here might have come to that conclusion.
anthony,TD...
I don’t mind personal attacks Anthony; I’m a big boy and look after myself.
You are in fact insinuating I’m a troll,
What I do find objectionable is you have chosen to discuss the usefulness/suitability of my contributions on what is a public forum attempting to involve other members of that forum.
You are in your post in effect inviting others to give their opinions on whether or not I’m an objectivist troll on a subjectivist’s forum.
I realize you may find this difficult to grasp, but it’s rather like discussing a person who is in your presences as if they are not, with other people.
That in most people’s eyes is extremely rude.
If you have an issue to take up with me, do it on your own, to my face.
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 13:51
I don’t mind personal attacks Anthony; I’m a big boy and look after myself.
You are in fact insinuating I’m a troll,
What I do find objectionable is you have chosen to discuss the usefulness/suitability of my contributions on what is a public forum attempting to involve other members of that forum.
You are in your post in effect inviting others to give their opinions on whether or not I’m an objectivist troll on a subjectivist’s forum.
I realize you may find this difficult to grasp, but it’s rather like discussing a person who is in your presences as if they are not, with other people.
That in most people’s eyes is extremely rude.
If you have an issue to take up with me, do it on your own, to my face.
hi welder,
well, i seem to have hit a raw nerve,:eek: if the troll description is the only part you find offensive then i appologise and i will remove it from the thread imediately, as for the rest i am afraid that untill i have read anything that contradicts these findings i will stand by what i have written.
anthony,TD...
Welder,
I believe you to be a professional wooden spoon of the first order :lol: I suspect you will fit in here well :stalks:
It's been an interesting thread so far, long may it continue
Steve Eddy
02-09-2010, 15:35
Keep up the good work - you're doing just fine now! :)
I was doing fine all along. Sometimes it just takes a while for my natural charm to work its magic. :lol:
In all seriousness, thank you.
How's the kitty doing? Better I hope.
se
Steve Eddy
02-09-2010, 15:37
I have been watching your presence from a distance it's been a great few weeks. I feel your replies have been exceptional, really good to have a light in the black on AOS these days. Keep up the quality work Steve.
Thank you for the kind words, Tony!
By the way, I tried visiting your website but keep getting this error message:
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a000d'
Type mismatch: 'majorver'
/includes/header.asp, line 57
EDIT: The website's working fine for me now.
se
If you try really, really, hard Anthony and read my post you quoted word by word, you will see the bit that says “what I find objectionable”. If you carry on from there (you may find you need to get some help clarifying the exact meaning) I think what I’m objecting to is reasonably clear :eyebrows:
I did mention that you might find it difficult to grasp.
You might also notice, while you’re reading, that I don’t say I find being called a troll offensive :scratch:
“as for the rest i am afraid that untill i have read anything that contradicts these findings i will stand by what i have written.”
There’s no need to be “afraid”, I’m just try to teach you some manners which you so obviously lack.
Btw, until is spelt with one l and you need to change all those little I’s into big ones. You might also find a comma after “as for the rest” helps clarify the sentence. When you start a new sentence you need to use those big letters, otherwise it reads a bit strangely.
It rather looks as if reading isn’t the only problem here.
“untill i have read anything that contradicts these findings i will stand by what i have written.”
Here we are then, you’re wrong; there’s the contradiction you have been seeking.
So you’re a forum mod Anthony and may well take the tone of my response as the ideal opportunity to ban me. Unfortunately, despite Marco’s gentle hint, instead of considering both his position and mine you have decided that you will try to justify your lack of manners and your insulting attitude instead of doing the “right” thing and withdrawing the entire post.
I would suggest that if you feel that my contributions to this forum are not suitable then the proper way to discuss this with Marco and anyone else who may have the right to decide on what is and what isn’t suitable, is in private; preferably having contacted me on the matter first.
Anyway, you chose a different route and made it a public issue.
If you don’t like my piss taking response then try at least to insert some punctuation into your sentences and ease up on the pompous and sanctimonious writing style.
Apart from the above, lets get to it then son :ner:
Sry Mr C, missed your comment. Thank you very much :)
doesnt anyone wanna know the result of our tea bag brew off?
oh well......:cool::cool::cool::cool:
Unfortunately, one of our panel of golden ears/taste buds, had to withdraw with 'belly ache' due to our use of distilled water in our brew as this increases palpitations, er palpability :rolleyes:
we will reschedule the brew off soonish as we have found some evidence that plugging in a computer can make you zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 16:34
If you try really, really, hard Anthony and read my post you quoted word by word, you will see the bit that says “what I find objectionable”. If you carry on from there (you may find you need to get some help clarifying the exact meaning) I think what I’m objecting to is reasonably clear :eyebrows:
I did mention that you might find it difficult to grasp.
now who's being pompous:eyebrows:
You might also notice, while you’re reading, that I don’t say I find being called a troll offensive :scratch:
“as for the rest i am afraid that untill i have read anything that contradicts these findings i will stand by what i have written.”
There’s no need to be “afraid”, I’m just try to teach you some manners which you so obviously lack.
manners are something i usualy have plenty of, its tolerance of stirers i lack!
Btw, until is spelt with one l and you need to change all those little I’s into big ones.
You might also find a comma after “as for the rest” helps clarify the sentence. When you start a new sentence you need to use those big letters, otherwise it reads a bit strangely.
Thank you for that i will make a note, "must try harder";)
It rather looks as if reading isn’t the only problem here.
“untill i have read anything that contradicts these findings i will stand by what i have written.”
Here we are then, you’re wrong; there’s the contradiction you have been seeking.
ok, until i have read something that contradicts these findings how's that ?;)
So you’re a forum mod Anthony and may well take the tone of my response as the ideal opportunity to ban me. why ???
Unfortunately, despite Marco’s gentle hint, instead of considering both his position and mine you have decided that you will try to justify your lack of manners and your insulting attitude instead of doing the “right” thing and withdrawing the entire post.
not until the others who have contributed to this thread have had a chance to make up their own minds on events.
I would suggest that if you feel that my contributions to this forum are not suitable then the proper way to discuss this with Marco and anyone else who may have the right to decide on what is and what isn’t suitable, is in private; preferably having contacted me on the matter first.
you dont seem to get it, this has nothing to do with you as a person, its got everything to do with this thread and your contribution to it,,, full stop!
Anyway, you chose a different route and made it a public issue.
If you don’t like my piss taking response then try at least to insert some punctuation into your sentences and ease up on the pompous and sanctimonious writing style.
Apart from the above, lets get to it then son :ner:
no point, i can see i am no match for you.:rolleyes:
Sry Mr C, missed your comment. Thank you very much :)
...
anthonyTD
02-09-2010, 16:50
hi all,
ok, i for one can see that this thread has probably come to the end of its usefull life
if it ever had one to start with :scratch:i fear if i contribute to it anymore i will only be drawn into a tit for tat match with the "school teacher" :eyebrows: and thats not my style, so as the dragons say "i'm out" but think on that man!;):)
anthony,TD...
Techno Commander
02-09-2010, 18:17
All this grief and emotion over a "bit of wire"!!! :lol:
Anyone want to try my patented Oxygen Free Copper Sulphate infused wet string.
Or should I stick with the bent coat hangers, which fit neatly in to phono sockets. :)
Steve Eddy
02-09-2010, 20:27
Get a grip ffs!
:lol:
And with that, the thread comes full circle.
se
Hi Steve,
I was doing fine all along. Sometimes it just takes a while for my natural charm to work its magic. :lol:
In all seriousness, thank you.
Lol, no worries - water under the bridge!
How's the kitty doing? Better I hope.
She's getting there slowly but surely, so thanks for asking :)
Marco.
Steve Eddy
02-09-2010, 21:13
She's getting there slowly but surely, so thanks for asking :)
Good to hear! Hope the trend continues.
se
BTW what are FF's?
I know what flat earthers are.
I don't know if i'm one or not?
Ali Tait
04-09-2010, 18:12
FFS is short for For F**ks Sake.
O my... never guessed that one.
So menny abreviations now from texting.
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 19:51
FFS is short for For F**ks Sake.
Please don't do that again.
I find asterisks offensive. :lol:
se
Ali Tait
04-09-2010, 20:02
:lol:
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 20:20
:lol:
Actually I'm only half joking.
I don't believe in "bad words." I find the whole notion of "bad words" to be irrational, puritanical and hypocritical and I hate seeing perfectly good words "disguised" with asterisks.
GIMME AN F! (http://www.q-audio.com/f.mp3)
http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
FFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!! http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6931/10156.gif (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/10156.gif/)
Marco.
FFFFFFAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYYYYYYYYY - that should confuse a few trans-atlantic folk... :)
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 20:42
FFFFFFFFFAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!! http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6931/10156.gif (http://img227.imageshack.us/i/10156.gif/)
Now THAT'S a bad word! :lolsign:
se
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 20:46
FFFFFFAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNYYYYYYYYY - that should confuse a few trans-atlantic folk... :)
Oh no. Fanny's fairly common over here (most commonly as "fanny pack"). Bum's not so common though, at least when referencing one's fanny. We typically use "bum" to describe a tramp or hobo and use "ass" or "butt" more commonly for the fanny reference.
se
Stratmangler
04-09-2010, 21:00
Oh no. Fanny's fairly common over here (most commonly as "fanny pack"). Bum's not so common though, at least when referencing one's fanny. We typically use "bum" to describe a tramp or hobo and use "ass" or "butt" more commonly for the fanny reference.
se
We use fanny to describe a woman's ladybits (we're talking front bottom here);)
Nothing to do with butts, asses or whatever you want to call 'em.:eyebrows:
Aha! - indeed, but over here, a "fanny" refers to the "front bottom" - so my plan of world confusion worked! I do like the idea of a fanny pack, though - not sure if you get them in Asda (Walmart) over here! ;)
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 21:14
We use fanny to describe a woman's ladybits (we're talking front bottom here);)
Nothing to do with butts, asses or whatever you want to call 'em.:eyebrows:
Interesting. I didn't know that. Always thought fanny was transoceanic.
se
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 21:16
Aha! - indeed, but over here, a "fanny" refers to the "front bottom" - so my plan of world confusion worked!
CURSES! FOILED AGAIN! :lol:
I do like the idea of a fanny pack, though - not sure if you get them in Asda (Walmart) over here! ;)
I rather like the idea of packing a fanny (in the British sense of the word that is) than a fanny pack. :lol:
se
All we need to do now is talk about 'fags'! :lol:
;)
Marco.
All we need to do now is talk about 'fags'! :lol:
;)
Marco.
Great to suck on, if you're that way inclined...:eyebrows:
Steve Eddy
04-09-2010, 22:15
All we need to do now is talk about 'fags'! :lol:
Nah. I'm enough of an anglophile to know what fags are.
But who wants to talk about a bundle of sticks? :lol:
se
"Look at this wonderful discussion.
I have not seen a good debate for a while, and it is very exciting to read through the words and counter words.
I would like to thank you all, specially tipper, and ketar participating in this thread whole heartedly.
Now I do not know much about pretty much everything, so I would like to imply common sense here. Lets consider an everyday society.
The point of establishing the laws is to prevent anyone from breaking the laws for the betterment of the society itself, serve punishments to the offenders and finally, allowing the offender considering several conditions to contribute in the betterment of the society.
Here is the catch. How will the offender be accepted in the society, when he is accused of committing the same crime several times?
He is kept under careful observation, and is prohibited from further damaging the society. The laws exist to serve the society and if the offender is capable of contributing in the society in an exceptional way, I think exceptions should be made, while maintaining careful observation.
However, those who are affected by the crime itself might bear a grudge against that criminal for ever. Regardless of the amount of effort the criminal puts in present, the victims are unable to forgive them.
Now, I have a question.
If that criminal now works to create ways for eradicating the tools of crime/the reasons for which people become criminals what are those victims supposed to do?
Will they still show their grudge, or will they understand that if these criminals are allowed to help under observation, no other people will share the same sufferings as theirs?
----------------------------------------
Bed time story is over. Who wants pizza?"
.................................................. ..................................................
What you see above is the most recent comment on a forum I used to moderate.
These are 11 to 16 year first person shooter players.
I cant help thinking there is something not quite right here having read the above :lolsign:
Oh yes, almost forgot, the new Benchmark Dac is out.
http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1-hdr
Out of all the fishies in the seas I wish I was a bass,I'd climb above the rocks and trees and slide down on my.................hands and knees.
more Crown Royal please...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.