Audio without numbers

So true. We can usually hear what we are measuring, but we cannot measure all we’re hearing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Pink Floyd told us to: “breath, breath in the air “, my interpretation of this is just relax and enjoy as life will pass to quickly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • sometimes-its-better-to-just-remain-silent-and-smile-5049749.png
    sometimes-its-better-to-just-remain-silent-and-smile-5049749.png
    126.9 KB · Views: 187
mep said:
Sounds like Herb met you AJ.
Click to expand...
If he did I don't recall.
The last person I encountered foaming at the mouth like that, had ingested something called "Spice". A bit like "Herb" I suppose. ;)
Hope he's feeling better now.
 
LoL Dan.

Reminds me of a poster I just read:

"I exercised for an hour and all I lost was 60 minutes!" Heh
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • good-good-let-the-hate-flow-through-you-quick-meme-7869279.png
    good-good-let-the-hate-flow-through-you-quick-meme-7869279.png
    169.2 KB · Views: 148
just proves that the dribble those reviewers write, they must be paid by the word count.
 
I must confess I did not have the philosophical stamina to read more than a few paragraph's of Herb's article.

I don't have any problem with objectivists at all, as I've always completely ignored them. sheepishly I do admit that a few times some numbers did help me to make system/room progress. but that is a couple of times over 20+ years with hundreds of decisions. all the rest of my decisions were made by listening.

a few times I've challenged anyone to assemble a room and system based just on numbers and let's compare it to my system. of course, the first thing they (the objectivists) said was that they are not interested in spending much money or effort actually assembling a high level system. in other words, objectivists shove their ideas at us 'listeners' yet are not even that committed to serious listening efforts. how can I even take these guys seriously? so I don't.

btw; I do read numbers about gear and no doubt numbers can be helpful as data points in figuring stuff out. but numbers are never the final answer.
 
Begruessung.jpg


"Study a famous 1903 Paul Klee etching entitled, Two Men Meet, Each Believing the Other to Be of Higher Rank (Zwei Männer, einander in höherer Stellung vermutend, begegnen sich). The naked unbearded fellow on the left is a left-brain Apollonian objectivist, the fatter bearded guy is a right brain Dionysian. Do you believe they should walk together? I am proposing they do."

Yes, I believe they should walk together. They complement each other very well.

About that!
 
Mike Lavigne said:
a few times I've challenged anyone to assemble a room and system based just on numbers and let's compare it to my system.
Click to expand...
Hi Mike, wasn't aware of this challenge. Exactly how would such a comparison be done? Details?

Mike Lavigne said:
the first thing they (the objectivists) said was that they are not interested in spending much money
Click to expand...
Do you consider yourself a "Subjectivist"? Is the price (monetary units) of your system an objective metric or purely subjective?
Mike Lavigne said:
objectivists shove their ideas at us 'listeners' yet are not even that committed to serious listening efforts.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I see Herbs strawman fever is catching.:)
So you remain unaware of the entire field of perceptual science?
 
AJ Soundfield said:
Hi Mike, wasn't aware of this challenge. Exactly how would such a comparison be done? Details?
Click to expand...

it was never anything formal, but my reaction to annoying objectivists trying to 'fix me'......when I was not asking to be fixed.

over the years I've encountered many 'objectivists' who question using sighted listening for system decision making. they push either some sort of objective testing or measurements as a superior way to assemble a system (set up and choose gear). for a few years now that has not occurred; mostly I think because over time those guys have been run out of the forums I participate in. when these guys would challenge my approach, I would ask them to explain in detail the system(s) they have put together with their approach and the details about the exact methods, gear tested, and pictures of the result.......since my methods and gear choices and pictures as well as lots of listener feedback is well documented on the web for anyone to read. their answer to my question was (1) I don't want to discuss my own system (they likely don't have one), (2) they have not actually used their method yet, (3) they are not willing to invest the money in a high level system to compete, or (4) they drop out of the thread and don't respond.

so I've never got past the request for 'step 1', which is simply to explain the system your carefully assembled exclusively using this objective/measurement method. 'step 2' would logically be to somehow have some listeners actually listen to music in that system and my system and tell us which one they prefer to listen to music in. this is about enjoying music after all. people who are not in it for music, and have other agendas, tend to get pushed away on these forums.

so by all means open a thread and tell us in detail about 'step 1'. how you painstakingly made every decision with objective means.


Do you consider yourself a "Subjectivist"? Is the price (monetary units) of your system an objective metric or purely subjective?
Click to expand...

yes; I do consider myself an subjectivist. price is not a factor since the whole point of the objectivists is that i'm just deluding myself buying expensive gear without an objective approach that would attain that same performance for much less. my point then is 'please, show me'.

the proof is in the subjective listening. of course. it's music we are all interested in.
Hmmm, I see Herbs strawman fever is catching.:)
So you remain unaware of the entire field of perceptual science?
Click to expand...

I would say I have little interest in the field of perceptual science. but i'm not questioning that humans listening has a scientific aspect to it.
 
The idea of trying to listen with a calculator has never appealed to me, any more than trying to watch basketball or baseball with a calculator. I enjoy each of those experiences without the need to crunch numbers.
 
The interesting thing is that in most cases it likely is not either or. At least when developing products you do need both. As some of the best audio engineers like Nelson Pass approach it, they first measure and then listen. The proof is always in the pudding whether the end result is pleasant or whatever the desired quality is.

My assumption would be that it is literally impossible to assemble a good sounding system by just staring at the numbers. A 30 Hz bass tone from a Wilson speaker or a Magico transducer are two totally different things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top