or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Audiophilia Newbie Looking to Expand System
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophilia Newbie Looking to Expand System - Page 3

post #61 of 134
Quote:
I never said I am sure that they are right and you are wrong. It's just what I first learned.
Exactly. You are exhibiting a well-known psychological bias. You encounter some information, and you accept it as true. Then you encounter some contrary information, and your first instinct is to assume that the latter must be false. Unfortunately, you encountered the wrong information first.
Quote:
I guess the best thing for me to do is set up a blind test of my own with a SACD and CD (or a Hybrid), perhaps with a switcher on my system at home and see which I think sounds better.
Well, you'd have to know how to do such a test in a rigorous manner, and I assure you you don't yet. What you can do in the meantime is actually read the Meyer/Moran article and learn what they actually found, not what some yahoo in an audio forum told you.
post #62 of 134
Quote:
Everyone is stating opinions, not just me.
But it only looks like an opinion because you don't have enough baseline knowledge to tell opinion from fact.
Quote:
The only facts I stated were numbers
Numbers which you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand.
Quote:
whether this is audible or not is the opinion.
Only to someone who doesn't know that these questions have been studied empirically, or who assumes that every opinion out there is backed by empirical research.
Quote:
Like everything is a conspiracy and every audiophile works receives benefits from Sony and Philips and would lie in order to assert their opinions.
They aren't lying. The have, at worst, succumbed to a well-known psychoacoustic illusion. Or they have compared disks with multiple differences and have wrongly attributed what they hear to only one of those differences.
Quote:
I can see the difference and so can my mom
And a mom would never, ever say anything to protect her son's illusions.
post #63 of 134
i give up... you win, as you are obviously convinced you are right, and you are completely unwilling to listen... go on believing in magic... it's your money...

edit: of course, that's a lie... i won't be able to resist... redface.gif

2nd edit: there are any number of us who have a significant amount of money tied up in our setups, and would gladly spend more on stuff like cables/dacs/etc. if there was evidence that they actually improved things... just in case you think this is a "money" issue... and there are any number of us who have spent a significant amount of time looking into many of the things that you are "sure" about and found the evidence lacking (to be kind)...

again, your knowledge base is seriously lacking on every topic you've brought up so far... up to you whether or not you'd like to remain in the dark (hint: "contrast" is a function of the display, not the signal)... perhaps if you had video calibration tools and the knowledge to use them, you would know this..
Edited by ccotenj - 10/1/12 at 7:10pm
post #64 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

And a mom would never, ever say anything to protect her son's illusions.
Well that's an assumption now isn't it? Especially when she commented without me asking her...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

2nd edit: there are any number of us who have a significant amount of money tied up in our setups, and would gladly spend more on stuff like cables/dacs/etc. if there was evidence that they actually improved things... just in case you think this is a "money" issue... and there are any number of us who have spent a significant amount of time looking into many of the things that you are "sure" about and found the evidence lacking (to be kind)...
again, your knowledge base is seriously lacking on every topic you've brought up so far... up to you whether or not you'd like to remain in the dark (hint: "contrast" is a function of the display, not the signal)... perhaps if you had video calibration tools and the knowledge to use them, you would know this..

No I didn't think money was the issue here at all. Perhaps I can't explain why the video signal looked better but it did. You can believe me, think I am lying, or think I have convinced myself of this. Either way I saw the difference and no it's not the placebo effect. Maybe the old cable was bad? Or maybe Kimber, Nordost, MIT, and all these other companies are "Out to rip people off" by making high quality cable in the USA from high quality cable stock, more labour intensive techniques, higher quality materials, etc... Maybe this is WHY they have to charge more? Look at my favourite cable company of all time Antipodes, they don't take many compromises. They handmake all the cables from pure silver in their small workshop with their daughters. They use unbleached cotton, all the materials are made in small workshops and factories near the workshop in New Zealand. I highly respect and admire them for this, Yes they may charge $200-$500 for their cables (sometimes more) but they are NOT rich people. They have to charge that much because the materials and labour cost alone makes for most of the cost of the cable and they have a very small made to order volume (unlike Monster Cable or Monoprice which is mass produced from inferior quality materials in China). Most of you might believe it won't make an audible difference, but whether it does or doesn't, I would still respect Antipodes a lot more than Monster Cable or Monoprice or any of these other brands...
post #65 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

Everyone is stating opinions, not just me. The only facts I stated were numbers, whether this is audible or not is the opinion. A blind test isn't going to prove anything because we don't know whether they guessed or whether they really heard a difference and really there is NO way to know that. Just to assume that 50% means it is inaudible is not a fact...
.
THere is in fact actually science on this. It's used all the time to vet efficacy of new medications, etc etc etc.
post #66 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

THere is in fact actually science on this. It's used all the time to vet efficacy of new medications, etc etc etc.

Yes but in much medicine you can measure this for example if the antibiotics actually kill the bacteria in the human. If it stops a woman's period, reduces inflammation or fever, etc... This is however, very different for listening to music... You cannot physically see the effects, a woman will not stop her period and a medicine will not kill bacteria through a placebo effect. How can they actually "Measure" whether the people listening had a placebo effect (especially if they were being blind tested, which already pretty much eliminates that chance), were guessing, or simply, truly thought that it sounded better? There is NO way, scientific or other for us to know whether the panel of listeners were lying, guessing, or truly thought one sounded better than the other. People's hearing is different, no two ears are alike. There could be sounds that one ear can perceive whilst others cannot, this can vary from age, to genetics of the ear, to many other factors! Perhaps even MOST people will not be able to tell the difference, but this doesn't mean that there is no difference, just that they couldn't hear it. Some peoples senses are better than others, some people notice nuances that others might not, etc....
post #67 of 134
Quote:
Everyone is stating opinions, not just me. The only facts I stated were numbers, whether this is audible or not is the opinion.


Oh f..k it. It really is useless talking to you.
post #68 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

Some people believe in Homeopathy, I'm not sure if I do exactly.
I used homoeopathy for a quite specific reason. Typically homoeopathic solutions are very diluted, to the extent that they may not even contain a single molecule of the purported active ingredient, so the discussion of antibiotics is an irrelevant strawman.

"Another example given by a critic of homeopathy states that a 12C solution is equivalent to a "pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans",which is approximately correct. One-third of a drop of some original substance diluted into all the water on earth would produce a remedy with a concentration of about 13C."

I regularly see products on store shelves at 60C and 200C dilutions. Think how much actual active ingredient is contained in any of these products.
Also consider the proven efficacy of antibiotics vs none for homoeopathy.
post #69 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Oh f..k it. It really is useless talking to you.
Yes, the 'true believers' cannot bear the thought of apostasy.
post #70 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

i'm beginning to wonder if we are being trolled... frown.gif.

Agreed, something ain't right.
post #71 of 134
Not for the unconvicible, just generally regarding non blinded testing and bias.
It is not only bias that spoil the value of sighted test in audio and everywhere else:

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/10/01/see-what-you-feel/
Quote:
One of the main themes of scientific skepticism, at least one of my favorite themes, is that we cannot take the accuracy of our own perceptions for granted. We cannot trust what we remember about what we think we experienced – a principle I call neuropsychological humility........

These narrow specific perceptual phenomena can be extrapolated to the working of our brains in general – our thoughts, feelings, and memories (in addition to our perceptions) are all the result of complex evolved algorithms that contain multiple assumptions, estimations, and calculated trade-offs, and they mostly occur beneath our awareness. It takes a great deal of introspection and metacognition to wrest a small measure of cognitive control from these subconscious processes.
post #72 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

Thanks you guys have been a great help! I think I will stick with Audio Karma (and possibly Audio Asylum) for help on this, since they are giving me a lot more concrete answers to my questions instead of criticizing.
Ah, so....
AA
AK
Quote:
Originally Posted by holt7153 View Post

Agreed, something ain't right.
Agreed.
post #73 of 134
correction:

Ah, so....
AA
AK
KAKA
post #74 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

THere is in fact actually science on this. It's used all the time to vet efficacy of new medications, etc etc etc.

Yes but in much medicine you can measure this for example if the antibiotics actually kill the bacteria in the human. If it stops a woman's period, reduces inflammation or fever, etc... This is however, very different for listening to music... You cannot physically see the effects, a woman will not stop her period and a medicine will not kill bacteria through a placebo effect. How can they actually "Measure" whether the people listening had a placebo effect (especially if they were being blind tested, which already pretty much eliminates that chance), were guessing, or simply, truly thought that it sounded better? There is NO way, scientific or other for us to know whether the panel of listeners were lying, guessing, or truly thought one sounded better than the other. People's hearing is different, no two ears are alike. There could be sounds that one ear can perceive whilst others cannot, this can vary from age, to genetics of the ear, to many other factors! Perhaps even MOST people will not be able to tell the difference, but this doesn't mean that there is no difference, just that they couldn't hear it. Some peoples senses are better than others, some people notice nuances that others might not, etc....

and once more, you are exposing your lack of knowledge... this is statistics 101... and it is well grounded...

the lack of understanding of what "science" (using the term very generically) is vs. "what you think" is astounding... sadly, that's not uncommon in today's world... frown.gif

as far as the video goes... it is "possible" that a poorly constructed (or inappropriate) analog cable could affect the signal... however, it cannot affect it in the way you are telling us it does... for example, there are no conceivable ways in which a cable can affect "contrast"... "contrast" is purely a function of the display... if it was not, it would be impossible to properly calibrate a display...
post #75 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

correction:

Ah, so....
AA
AK
KAKA

LOL! you almost cost me an ipad there... biggrin.gif
post #76 of 134
Uggh. I thought you came here looking for advice and help. That is a sham. You obviously came here because you love to argue with people and think you know a little about the topic. I can't think of any other rational reason why you have poo-pooed every single shred of advice offered, every single shred of knowledge offered. You for some reason desperately need to be right about what you think you know. You just aren't.
post #77 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by holt7153 View Post

Agreed, something ain't right.

I thought this was some pretty advanced trolling, but a quick google search found the OP with this same thread in almost half a dozen other audio forums.

Sadly, at this point, the OP appears to be "serious". He only seems to be getting traction here so luckily for AVS, the OP is spending some quality time with us.
post #78 of 134
^^^

lol, i just searched... smile.gif

guys, check out the antipodes cables site for the cables he's pimping...

http://www.antipodesaudio.com/audio_cables.html

the prose on the cable page alone is priceless... such as the "double the wire gauge gives superior speed, weight, scale and detail resolution"... tongue.gif

the "reviews" are even better... biggrin.gif that website that the "reviews" are on is a complete hoot...

"a fool and his money..."...
post #79 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

Yes but in much medicine you can measure this for example if the antibiotics actually kill the bacteria in the human. If it stops a woman's period, reduces inflammation or fever, etc... This is however, very different for listening to music... You cannot physically see the effects, a woman will not stop her period and a medicine will not kill bacteria through a placebo effect. How can they actually "Measure" whether the people listening had a placebo effect (especially if they were being blind tested, which already pretty much eliminates that chance), were guessing, or simply, truly thought that it sounded better? There is NO way, scientific or other for us to know whether the panel of listeners were lying, guessing, or truly thought one sounded better than the other. People's hearing is different, no two ears are alike. There could be sounds that one ear can perceive whilst others cannot, this can vary from age, to genetics of the ear, to many other factors! Perhaps even MOST people will not be able to tell the difference, but this doesn't mean that there is no difference, just that they couldn't hear it. Some peoples senses are better than others, some people notice nuances that others might not, etc....

First, despite all the measurability you suggest exists, those trials are run double blind to avoid skewing the results via human factors. Hmmmm

Moreover, everybody (may) experience pain differently, there's no measurement I can take to determine whether you are feeling less pain, really, after taking aspirin or a sugar pill, and yet they are able to establish efficacy through rigorous double blind testing.

Here's something you can actually hang on to. An appropriately designed double blind liteening test will establish a null hypothesis, which is "these 2 devices/cables/whatever sound alike." Then you run multiple iterations of the test with multiple subjects, all double blinded. In the end, you analyze the data and you can either reject the null hypothesis or not reject the null hypothesis, at whatever level of statistical significance you chose in designing the program. The test never exactly "proves" the null hypothesis, although at some point the evidence becomes somewhat overwhelming that there are not differences that are repeatable audible.
post #80 of 134
Not sure why I'm bothering, buy basic statistics and psychoacouatics here we go...

Sure, any one person in a group of blinded test subjects may in fact be hearing a difference and correctly responding rather than guessing. In fact, many may be. But the results will actually reveal this to be happening... you just can't tell who exactly the magic ears are.

Here's how it works. A test comparing say CD and SACD in this example doesn't ask test subjects which sounds better, it only needs to ask test subjects if they can tell a difference between A and B... between CD and SACD. The answer is either yes or no, either they can or can't. Now, start from the premise that people can't distinguish the two and thus will be guessing. Over a large number of trials with many test subjects, guessing will produce half getting the answer correct by chance and half getting it wrong by chance.

Now I troduce your proposition that some of those people may be getting it correct not because of guessing but because of superior hearing acuity. They really can hear a difference, and thus get the answer correct more often than guessing alone would produce. These people have correct results recorded. But the rest of the subjects are still getting half correct by guessing. When you average together those subjects who always or usually get it right due to good hearing and those guessing, you will find somewhat higher than 50% of the answers are correct. The more people getting it right without guessing, the greater the percentage.

Now, you know if you flip a coin you may get runs of heads or tails. If you flip it ten times, you won't always get 5 of each. If you flip it 100, you will expect to get something around 50 off by only a few. If you flip it 10,000 you will again expect to be off by only a few one way or another. If you test 500 people and are off by only a few from half, this is what you would expect from flipping a coin or guessing. If there are people in that group not relying on guessing, their number must be very small or else it would be highly improbable for the remaining pool of guessing subjects to just happen to get it right too few times to offset these good listeners. The more trials you to, the more confident you become in your results.

In the case of the CD vs SACD test in question, only a couple of people at best could be getting the answer correct without relying on guessing without driving the correct percentage significantly above half. You can calculate the probability of obtaining these results with 'x's number of golden ear test subjects if you like. You find it becomes quickly quite improbable as you add each single good listener.

On the flip side, however, if you could isolate that good listener and then test him individually over a decent number of trials, you shoud quite readily discover that his answers are correct significantly more than half the time. If this is the case for a single listener, then as you increase the number of trials in which he gets it right it quickly becomes highly improbable that his answers are the result of chance.

Thus, while it takes a large number of trials with a large number of listeners producing results near 50%, such as the test referenced earlier, to become confident that at best very few people can hear a difference (and yes, this can never conclusively prove that it is impossible that at least one person may exist somewhere who can really hear the difference), it takes but that one, singular good listener to prove beyond doubt that at least one person can really tell the difference. Just one person to prove without doubt that the difference truly is audible.

This is an important point, because even though it only takes a single listener to effectively end the debate about whether such things as cables, reasonably designed dacs, reasonably designed amplifiers, transports etc may at least sometimes truly sound different, you won't find one documented case of this happening during the decades these debates have been ongoing. Not one single example when the test was properly controlled, conducted and documented. All it takes to prove your cable makes a difference is just one listener. One. Out of the thousands upon thousands who regularly claim to easily hear significant repeatable differences, not one has demonstrated this ability in a controlled manner. Not once. Not for cables, dacs, transports, amplifiers... never. Large sums of money and other incentives have been offered to people who claim the difference is obvious to step forward and prove it. People who say their wives or moms can easily hear or see the difference from the next room. No proof. None. After decades of begging. Why?

Now, put that absolute lack of proof from the thousands who claim the differences are night and day in the context of decades of controlled testing such as the aforementioned CD vs SACD test, all showing at best only a couple of people out of hundreds may not need to rely on guessing. What is the natural conclusion?

Even more convincingly, put all of these listening tests in the context of measurements and what we know about the science of human hearing. Decades of other research and human testing has established what our threshold of hearing is with respect to distortion levels of various types, frequency differences, volume differences, etc. Measurements made with instruments of such accuracy and resolution and repeatability that it really boggles the mind. If two cables have measurable differences in their impact on frequency response or volume that are orders of magnitude smaller than what humans have demonstrated an ability to hear, what do you think of claims that the differences are night and day? Or dacs with distortion and linearity differences mere fractions of what decades of tedious research has established is audible? Either the claims are suspect, or there is something going on in a process as simple as AC current flowing through ordinary wire at quite mundane frequency and power bands that is entirely unknown to science. Science which has relied on intimate and exacting knowledge of how electricity behaves in wire under frequency or power or operating conditions quite extreme compared to audio to make mind bogglingly accurate predictions about how our world works, down to the most amazing minutia. Does the guy assembling cables in his garage really know something profound about this science that the guys at CERN do not?

And finally, if you're asking yourself "but how could all these people be so confident and yet so wrong... myself even"?! Not to fret. There are additional mountains of research documenting the fallacy of human perception and the power of expectation bias, persuasion, and placebo. People can hear, see, feel all sorts of things that are only in their minds. Placebos in medicine can be quite powerful. Persuasion allows magicians to do amazing things that your senses are sure are impossible. And we have documented that expectation bias is a powerful manipulator of what we hear. These things are so powerful, in fact, that they can override changes that really are there. We tend to "prefer" stuff that is bigger, prettier, shinier, more expensive, even when their measured performance is inferior and even when listening tests under blinded conditions demonstrate that we actually prefer them less based on sound alone. When you buy an expensive cable, it is quite likely that it will in fact "sound" better to you, even if underneath the pretty shielding is a rusty coat hanger. That's because hearing is a process in which the brain takes physical sound received by the ears and processes it in an amazingly complex way to mask noise, localize sound, and finally recognize patterns based on experience to put the sound in context. Unfortunately since the brain and its processing are required, we can't separate it from the physical sound, nor isolate it from the influences of suggestion and bias that both plague and rescue all human perceptions. You aren't alone in thinking you hear a difference. I hear one too, even though I know beyond any doubt that none exists physically. I can no more control or eliminate these influences than you can.

If you have made it this far, and are a rational man, do your not at least begin to question what you had already accepted as obvious and "true"? Do you begin to question your own perceptions when it seems so clear? The evidence, on all fronts, is absolutely overwhelming.

Your final question... but why do people bother to make these cables? Why do engineers bother wasting their time designing ever more accurate dacs? Because people will always buy them.
post #81 of 134
^^^

if i could give that a million "thumbs up" clicks, i would...

well done bigus... that should be stickied...
post #82 of 134
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Uggh. I thought you came here looking for advice and help. That is a sham. You obviously came here because you love to argue with people and think you know a little about the topic. I can't think of any other rational reason why you have poo-pooed every single shred of advice offered, every single shred of knowledge offered. You for some reason desperately need to be right about what you think you know. You just aren't.

Nobody has yet to give me any advice on what speakers to buy so no, I haven't been given much advice. Your later post and the post made by JHAz were the only posts attempting in the least to change my mind and alter my perception. JHaz has my praise for what he wrote in page 2 about CD technology... If you guys want to convert me from what I have learned, then you will have to do what Bigus and JHaz are doing - truly challenging my beliefs, rather than just saying things like "do your research", etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccotenj View Post

^^^
lol, i just searched... smile.gif
guys, check out the antipodes cables site for the cables he's pimping...
http://www.antipodesaudio.com/audio_cables.html
the prose on the cable page alone is priceless... such as the "double the wire gauge gives superior speed, weight, scale and detail resolution"... tongue.gif
the "reviews" are even better... biggrin.gif that website that the "reviews" are on is a complete hoot...
"a fool and his money..."...

The labour cost + materials + the fact that it's handmade, and all locally produced, etc... All justify the price. To be honest the owner of this company is not someone I would call rich, whilst the owner of Monster Cable is probably a millionaire. This is my point. I respect and admire him for supporting his local community and making everything by hand from environmentally friendly materials, etc... Yes it costs more, but it also costs A LOT more to produce. What's wrong with using better quality materials and paying your workers well, etc...? Whether those better quality materials and all this add any audible difference is in the "ear of the beholder." This is NOT the reason they are more expensive. A crappy audio system that is made from the best materials in a developed country with high paying wages, will inherently cost more than something that's made of cheap materials and made in a third world country will cost. WORTH is NOT calculated by SQ but by labour cost, material quality, etc... IMHO. This is why I mentioned this company as they don't try to make things cheaply, they use the best of materials (99% of which are locally produced), and support their local workforce, this is a lot more than you can say for most of the cheap cables out there! Therefore the value of these cables is higher than all the cheap mass produced cable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Not sure why I'm bothering, buy basic statistics and psychoacouatics here we go...
Sure, any one person in a group of blinded test subjects may in fact be hearing a difference and correctly responding rather than guessing. In fact, many may be. But the results will actually reveal this to be happening... you just can't tell who exactly the magic ears are.

Yes as you mentioned in your detailed post, people can here a difference. The 50/50 flipping a coin thing is an assumption, just because the result is 50/50, as you state there might be just one who can hear a difference. The fact that some can, doesn't make it a placebo effect, why? Because they don't KNOW which one is which if it's a BLIND TEST, especially one that is well done!!! So in turn there is no way to scientifically prove that those 50% or even 1% of people that can hear the difference are guessing or are actually hearing a difference, as this cannot be a placebo if they don't know which is which! This would be true if it weren't a blind test though.
Quote:
Why do engineers bother wasting their time designing ever more accurate dacs? Because people will always buy them.

Really? I think that people would just design new CD players with old dacs and most consumers would STILL buy new CD players. A few audiophiles might buy a new CD player because a new DAC has come out for it, but most consumers don't ever even look at DAC specs! Especially if you say most people (if not all) can't tell the difference. Most consumers are cheap sceptics and not everyone has a disposable income. Audiophile equipment is aimed at a very few. I don't think that companies would really spend millions of dollars developing technologies that wouldn't make a difference to millions of consumers which would give those companies the millions back that they invested in it...
post #83 of 134
Quote:
Yes as you mentioned in your detailed post, people can here a difference

You are truly amazing.
Compare that to what was said:
Quote:
Sure, any one person in a group of blinded test subjects may in fact be hearing a difference and correctly responding rather than guessing. In fact, many may be. But the results will actually reveal this to be happening

Out of a "maybe" you fabricate a "can". Again, what you do here reminds me of the discussions of what happens between creationists and scientists. Quotemining, twisting the meaning..

because to go a bit further, this was said:
Quote:
This is an important point, because even though it only takes a single listener to effectively end the debate about whether such things as cables, reasonably designed dacs, reasonably designed amplifiers, transports etc may at least sometimes truly sound different, you won't find one documented case of this happening during the decades these debates have been ongoing.

Just not worth my time anymore.
post #84 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz 
Yes as you mentioned in your detailed post, people can here a difference.
Methinks you think I mentioned something I think I did not. wink.gif
Quote:
The 50/50 flipping a coin thing is an assumption
It may be an assumption going into the test, but it is proven by the results of the test.
Quote:
The fact that some can, doesn't make it a placebo effect, why? Because they don't KNOW which one is which if it's a BLIND TEST, especially one that is well done!!! So in turn there is no way to scientifically prove that those 50% or even 1% of people that can hear the difference are guessing or are actually hearing a difference, as this cannot be a placebo if they don't know which is which! This would be true if it weren't a blind test though.
Why do you keep talking about placebo? There is no placebo in the test in question. Stop regurgitating what you think you know and listen. I've tried to lay out the basics in a simple and compelling way. Reread my prior post again with an open mind, not looking for sentences to attack and points to defend, but read it as if you are really curious about how something works and want to find out. I think you skimmed it with frustration building in anticipation of firing back a response. Take your time and really think about what I said.
post #85 of 134
bigus, with a bit of judicious editing and abbreviation, methinks you should keep a copy of your post for the future.

Might save typing.

Baron..ok, keep your cables, after all you already have them, and are happy. It has been sidetracked a little, a sidetrack I see you are willing to engage in, but back to your original question about what speakers.

Well, to be honest with you, I don't get it. On the one hand you are claiming superiority of personal listening, and will fight to the death on that, yet here you are asking someone else for advice on what YOU might like? Your own stance is 'every ones ears are different and have different acuities', eyt you want us to tell you what you might like?

A budget of what, a couple of hundred and you are already into cables and formats?

Audio is all about what you like and prefer. It seems somehow you get that, yet equally you take an opposite tack and rely on group think. Which is it?

By all means run a poll on as many forums as you want, let that be the decider for you.

Or, you could get off your arse and find out for yourself which of those speakers you would prefer. Hard to do? Ok, it;s hard to do. But you seem willing to fight tooth and nail for what you 'believe' are some sort of audio truths, yet too lazy or could not be bothered to go out and listen for yourself?

Imagine, given your response to what has been presented to you that you went with a recommendation from here ....and you did not like it....

YOUR ears, YOUR tastes, take a bit of effort for your own enjoyment.

(just as an aside, how asking for recommendations MIGHT work is you state your desired listening levels, the amount of power you have, your room volumes and then 'would this speaker fill those criteria? Those are engineering questions, able (at least in theory) to be answered. Personal taste? Only one person can answer that, I'll leave you to work out who that person might be)

just as another aside on the aside, I agree with a lot of your off topic observations about medicine and drugs, but it is hardly an audio question
post #86 of 134
yup, we are being trolled... no one could possibly be this obtuse without intention...
post #87 of 134
Sorry..... couldn't resist:

Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?
Warden Samuel Norton: Son, you're forgetting yourself.
Andy Dufresne: The country club will have his old time cards. Records, W-2s with his name on them. Sir, if I ever get out, I'd never mention what happens here. I'd be just as indictable as you for laundering that money.
[Norton slaps the table]
Warden Samuel Norton: Don't you ever mention money to me again, you sorry son of a bitch! Not in this office, not anywhere!
post #88 of 134
Quote:
yup, we are being trolled... no one could possibly be this obtuse without intention...
I'm leaning the other way. No one could possibly fake it this well.
post #89 of 134
I vote, not a fake nor a troll looking to get a rise, just somewhat haphazard in his analysis and reading comprehension. Too many competing thoughts getting jumbled up in his head and finding their way into his posts. I give him points for not flying off the handle given the constant stream of challenge he's been subjected to. Not that the challenges haven't been warranted, he's earned them. tongue.gif
post #90 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Quote:
yup, we are being trolled... no one could possibly be this obtuse without intention...
I'm leaning the other way. No one could possibly fake it this well.

i considered the other possibility, but decided that would be terribly unkind... wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Audiophilia Newbie Looking to Expand System