there were two parts to this thread. the first part has been answered. the second part has not.
no one has attempted to provide a rationale, justification or reason for a position.
i have been battling with certain individuals about this for the last two months.
my perception is there is a lot of dogmatism and intolerance of opinions which differ from the conventional wisdom.
there has been argumentum ad hominem--heat but not light.
how about some defense ?
i realize that some of you don't see the necessity to defend yourself (9w ??).
however it is very easy to criticize and insult but somewhat unfair not to defend what seems to be in some cases arbitrary positions. |
the dichotomy is not illusory. there are two ways to judge the merits of a stereo system, namely, equipment-based and listener-based.
a stereo system has an affect upon the listener. the stereo system can also be evaluated as to the usual criteria of neutrality, accuracy, transparency, resolution, etc. .
i believe both metods, the sound of the stereo system, independent of its affect upon the listener, or the affect upon the listener are valid.
many audiophiles feel that a listener's emotional response to sound is irrelevant as to the sound quality of a stereo system. such an approach places the stereo system as the point of reference.
i have yet to read a reasoned definitive argument rejecting one or the other position. |
hi lenny. you are discussing another topic.
let me restate my position.
there are two ways to evaluate a stereo system.
first there is the performance of the stereo system itself, whether through use of measurements, or by listening.
the issue here is not what does a stereo system sound like.
the issue is how do you evaluate a stereo system ?
of course, people wwill disagree as to what a stereo system sounds like and will also disagree as to what constitutes sonic excellence.
the other approach is to ask the listener to describe how he/she feels after listening to music played through a stereo system. is there some sense of improvment in mood, lowering of blood pressure, reduction in anger, etc. ?
what are appropriate criteria for evaluating a stereo system.
i have observed several answers from asute individuals, but i suspect that there is no definitive answer to this question.
if that is so, i would hope that people would be open minded an accept many ideas as to what constitutes a high quality stereo system other than the concept of neutrality, accuracy, transparency, lack of coloration, etc.
by the way, just for the record, my own preference for a reduction in treble energy has nothing to do with the quality of a stereo system. it is my own idiosyncratic taste.
this is another philosophical question whose purpose was to stimulate a discussion and provide an impetus to change attitudes about what constitutes good sound. |
i'll try one last time.
there are two ways to approach the question "what is good sound ?"
the first is based upon the intrinsic qualities of the sound of instruments produced by the stereo system
the second, is based upon extrinsic criteria, having nothing to do with the quality of the sound but rather a listener's reaction to the sound.
if a listener has a negative raction to the "sound" of a stereo system, it is not a good sounding stereo system, for such a person.
thus there are two ways to judge the merits of a stereo system.
the same stereo system could be judged as excellent in quality based upon intrinsic criteria but judged to be of poor quality based upon how the listener's response to that stereo system.
can a case be made definitively for one or the other position ?
if not there should be more tolerance of differences and less dogmatism.
|
9rw, chill out and take an anger management course.
i appreciate your kind remarks and concerns about my listening skills and qualifications for the presidency of the pseudo-intellectual babble club.
however arbitrary statements like yours are just another opinion, although, to your credit, shared by other "audiophiles" .
however, stating an opinion about reference and accuracy does not justify it. there are other points of view equally valid. your concept of "high end" may not be shared by others.
you don't have the force of logic and necessity to back up your statements. you have no proof.
keep up the good work. |
9rw, i'm glad you are being entertained. i should charge you a consulting fee for my services.
also, you may not have to see your shrink this week. |
9rw, how does your wife put up with you ?
you have such a pleasant temperament.
nothing seems to bother you. you are always so kind and gracious--and full of complements.
by the way, do you have a life, outside of audio ? |
hi phd:
my thought behind this question is the reference for the answer. should it be the perfromance of the stereo system itself, judged by the usual criteria, or purely whether the listener likes the sound or not, regardless of the reasons ?
if the latter, then i suspect there would be many disagreements as to good sound, if the former, i suspect there would be more convergence. what say you ? |
i think the thread is asking a basic question which can be asked of other endeavors, namely, are there objective standards for evaluating quality or is it all subjective, in which case, it's just a matter of opinion ?
i would like to have a rational discussion, if anyone is interested. |
marco, i9 agree with you in principle. for me, the closer i get to the sound of an instrument in a live setting, the happier i am. |
when considering 2 speakers which are attenuated in the bass, one may be down 3 db at 40 hz, and the other may be down 6db at 40hz. both speakers are inaccurate.
accurate is analogous to scoring a grade of 100 on a test.
thus, there are degrees of inaccuarcy, e.g., one speaker is less inaccurate than another. i believe the word accurate implies perfection. all components fall short of that. i could be wrong. one may be using the word in a different way. |
there is a simple but not perfect solution as indicated below:
take a single instrument, such as a cymbal.
obtain a decent digital recording device.
measure the distance between the cymbal and the microphone, and make a recording in your listening room.
you may make several recordings, each with a slightly different microphone placement. you will need an assistant for this procedure.
a cymbol could be struck with a wooden drum stick, for recording purposes. thereafter, compare the sound of the cymbal to the recording, fed through your stereo system. make sure the listener is sitting at a distance from the cymbal, equal to the distance between mike and cymbal. hopefully, mike would have been placed at listening position. thus, one has an opportunity to compare the sound of an instrument with the recreation of the sound of the instrument heard through one's stereo system. one can vary components, to try to come as close as possible to the sound of the cymbal.
yes, it is not perfect and it is just a cymbal, but its a start and provides an indication of the differences between live and recording. you could also do this experiment using an acoustic guitar. however, mike placement may be more significant than for a cymbal. |
my suggestion does not require a cello. it can rely on an instrument that anyone can "play". since it is always available, there is no need to be dependent upon acoustic memory.
if you replace components, it is an approach which gives you an idea as to how close you are to the timbre of a cymbal. does anyone have another idea ?
referring again to the example of the cello, you can take advantage of that situation and replace components while the musician is there. |
