There have been some very substantive replies to your opinions, and not from only me. I think in almost any forum long, repetitive and confrontational posts from anyone (especially a new member) will generate a variety of responses. IMO you should have been prepared for that, not surprised nor disappointed about it.
Avoid the snake oil
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Randy Myers
Well-known member
And Mr. Hooper, if you bothered to spend some time and show some interest in the forum, not just non-stop long diatribes in one thread you might find, after people know you somewhat, they might be more willing to listen to your points of view. Instead, from your first post to your last you have been nothing but confrontational and showing a holier than thou attitude. So be it. Bye bye now.
You might want to read Neil's quote below...
You might want to read Neil's quote below...
CPP
Active member
- Thread Author
- #104
At the risk of exhibiting the same sort of posting behavior most of us are criticizing, I think Matt's posts could have been summarized in a much more concise fashion than they first appeared here.
I (Matt) like to use (sort of) blind testing to convince myself that for components where I think there shouldn't be a difference (e.g., cables, servers) there really isn't a difference. I don't use any ersatz blind testing to help me choose my components (not specified) where I think there should be differences. Even though I (Matt) am careful to say that my opinions only apply to my choices, my endless posts strongly imply that those opinions should apply to everyone.
I (Matt) like to use (sort of) blind testing to convince myself that for components where I think there shouldn't be a difference (e.g., cables, servers) there really isn't a difference. I don't use any ersatz blind testing to help me choose my components (not specified) where I think there should be differences. Even though I (Matt) am careful to say that my opinions only apply to my choices, my endless posts strongly imply that those opinions should apply to everyone.
Michaels HiFi
Well-known member
stereogeek
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2018
- Messages
- 472
I'll jump in here for a second to comment on the analog vs digital "argument." I equate the analog vs digital thing with the transister vs tube argument. Digital and transisters use bits to form the music waveform while analog and tubes make the waveform in a solid wave, hence the way we percieve the music as being smoother with more depth. Help me here if I am off base. Cheers.
MattHooper
New member
(For some reason I got an audioshark alert for stereogeek's post. Well, might as well...)
This it appears is a common myth.
If you are really interested in delving in to this issue, I sugges you watch this video. It's very informative:
D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube
And some of the "myths" busted in that video are summarized here:
Audio Myths - The Ultimate "Myth Buster" Video - Monty Montgomery, Xip - Benchmark Media Systems
Cheers!
This it appears is a common myth.
If you are really interested in delving in to this issue, I sugges you watch this video. It's very informative:
D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) - YouTube
And some of the "myths" busted in that video are summarized here:
Audio Myths - The Ultimate "Myth Buster" Video - Monty Montgomery, Xip - Benchmark Media Systems
Cheers!
MattHooper
New member
(Since I'm here for a moment...)
^^^ That really is a good example for how difficult it is to summarize someone else's position if it's one you don't agree with. The tendency to strawman will be almost irresistible.
As I mentioned more than once in the thread, I have detected differences in blind tests for some gear. Further, I also have done blind tests on items where I was fairly confident I was hearing a difference - e.g. between my tube preamp and my Benchmark preamp. I was easily able to reliably identify the tube preamp. I wasn't purchasing on the basis of the blind test - I already owned both, and was just interested. So, no, it is not the case that I'm simply trying to confirm an opinion that I'll hear no differences in blind tests.
As I've said, I don't claim any audiophile must do blind testing and I often don't myself. I don't bother (and it's difficult anyway) in cases where audible differences are known to be the case - e.g. speakers. It's always possible some bias is influencing my perception of a loudspeaker, but I'm fine with going on my impressions because there are highly plausible sonic differences between speakers and blind testing would be entirely impractical...and major hassle. If we want to be scientists then, yes, we would want to tightly control variables to get at the bottom of understanding a phenomenon. But we can't do science all day on every choice (and who would want to?), so pragmatism makes sense. When I'm cooking and testing recipes and I add more salt...it COULD be that the dish tastes a bit more salty to me because I'm influenced by the knowledge I added more salt. But then, adding salt clearly CAN make the food taste more salty. As a practical matter, it's entirely reasonable to proceed with cooking as normal, going with impressions and plausible enhancements of ingredients, rather than engaging in chemical science and blind testing in every day life. I approach much of this audio hobby and my purchases the same way. I don't demand scientific-level scrutiny as a rule. I often can't be bothered with it. But when it comes to the areas of controversies in audio, when I'm skeptical I take a more critical look at the evidence.
Would you like to point out anything that is actually unreasonable about this position?
As to this:
So you read my constant caveats that "I'm not suggesting other audiophiles need to do blind testing, enjoy the hobby any way you want" as implying the exact opposite. Don't read the words; just re-characterize it in to something you want to reject. That's a convenient way to never accept someone's argument and continue to strawman.
And, btw, in regards to "opinions that should apply to everyone" is it possible you are taking a biased view? You don't seem to have a problem with others here making claims that they present not as "mere opinion" but on the grounds they think other opinions are wrong. For instance, I've been admonished by Mike: "Oh dear Matt, you have so much to learn young grasshopper. You can hear what you can measure, but you can’t measure what you can hear (tone, depth of soundstage, instrument separation, etc)."
^^^ That really is a good example for how difficult it is to summarize someone else's position if it's one you don't agree with. The tendency to strawman will be almost irresistible.
As I mentioned more than once in the thread, I have detected differences in blind tests for some gear. Further, I also have done blind tests on items where I was fairly confident I was hearing a difference - e.g. between my tube preamp and my Benchmark preamp. I was easily able to reliably identify the tube preamp. I wasn't purchasing on the basis of the blind test - I already owned both, and was just interested. So, no, it is not the case that I'm simply trying to confirm an opinion that I'll hear no differences in blind tests.
As I've said, I don't claim any audiophile must do blind testing and I often don't myself. I don't bother (and it's difficult anyway) in cases where audible differences are known to be the case - e.g. speakers. It's always possible some bias is influencing my perception of a loudspeaker, but I'm fine with going on my impressions because there are highly plausible sonic differences between speakers and blind testing would be entirely impractical...and major hassle. If we want to be scientists then, yes, we would want to tightly control variables to get at the bottom of understanding a phenomenon. But we can't do science all day on every choice (and who would want to?), so pragmatism makes sense. When I'm cooking and testing recipes and I add more salt...it COULD be that the dish tastes a bit more salty to me because I'm influenced by the knowledge I added more salt. But then, adding salt clearly CAN make the food taste more salty. As a practical matter, it's entirely reasonable to proceed with cooking as normal, going with impressions and plausible enhancements of ingredients, rather than engaging in chemical science and blind testing in every day life. I approach much of this audio hobby and my purchases the same way. I don't demand scientific-level scrutiny as a rule. I often can't be bothered with it. But when it comes to the areas of controversies in audio, when I'm skeptical I take a more critical look at the evidence.
Would you like to point out anything that is actually unreasonable about this position?
As to this:
So you read my constant caveats that "I'm not suggesting other audiophiles need to do blind testing, enjoy the hobby any way you want" as implying the exact opposite. Don't read the words; just re-characterize it in to something you want to reject. That's a convenient way to never accept someone's argument and continue to strawman.
And, btw, in regards to "opinions that should apply to everyone" is it possible you are taking a biased view? You don't seem to have a problem with others here making claims that they present not as "mere opinion" but on the grounds they think other opinions are wrong. For instance, I've been admonished by Mike: "Oh dear Matt, you have so much to learn young grasshopper. You can hear what you can measure, but you can’t measure what you can hear (tone, depth of soundstage, instrument separation, etc)."
4N6
New member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2016
- Messages
- 189
The only Monte Montgomery videos worth listening to are something like these!
Monte Montgomery - Took Too Long (Live) - YouTube
still-one
Active member
I haven't watched any of his videos but he sure put on a fine show at The Ark in Ann Arbor about 10 years ago.
Speedskater
Member
So what ever happened to (Chris) Monty Montgomery?
It's been five years since his last blog.
It's been five years since his last blog.
petek
New member
No not all of us. Danny and young Jay are very well regarded.