"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[christopher3393]

18 hours ago, sullis02 said:

From my perspective, spanning several decades of the 'Great Debate' in audio,  Reichert and HA absolutely do represent different 'sides'. And HA has done more to promote evidence-based thought about audio than pretty much any other audio-related 'publication' that isn't an actual scientific journal.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13273-ok-i-tried-hydrogen-audio-it-didnt-go-too-well/

[Ron Scubadiver]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Don't think so, they announced a new editor. Probably just taking her a few days to decide exactly what she's going to do with the site. 

I saw that later.  No doubt some changes are on the way.

[fas42]

13 hours ago, adamdea said:

To me this is where it all goes wrong. You can have a profound musical experience listening to a transistor radio or a car stereo or even a Bose. Some people with a profound knowledge and appreciation of music never listen to anything (bar live music) else.

A fancy hifi (expensive or cheap) is not the prerequisite or guarantor of musical enjoyment. I think that over investing in this connection is dangerous and leads to attributing all fluctuations in ones experience to properties of the kit. @crenca and @christopher3393 put down the Kant and the Foucault, this (not epistemology) is where the bodies are buried.

 

 

I find there are at least two levels - a transistor radio leaves so much out that the sins are not obvious - the jist of the music is in place, and you get the overall message; when a system becomes ambitious you hear more of the fine detail of the recording, and the damage being done to that fine detail by the playback chain. It's the elimination of the latter that's absolutely critcial ... what happens is that a competent rig allows one to relax in the same way as listening casually to a transistor radio, even though the sound level is far, far greater, and what you are hearing is so much more detailed.

 

Normal high end, or hifi, very rarely gets this right - the difference is, yes, dramatic - and definitely makes the effort to achieve convincing playback competely worth it.

[sullis02]

On 4/17/2018 at 8:22 AM, drbobb said:

 

I love evidence-based thinking! Surely you'll want to provide some for your claim. Or is the above merely a subjective impression?

 

I thought you claimed to know the place?   Apparently either I was wrong, or you were.

 

Quote

BTW, how many accounts do you have here?

 

One: krabapple.   Btw, why do you ask?

 

EDIT: Ah, I see.    Yes, I'm sullis02 and krabapple too.  I'm actually not recalling why, but there's no attempt at hiding it.  

 

[sullis02]

On 4/17/2018 at 12:43 PM, christopher3393 said:

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13273-ok-i-tried-hydrogen-audio-it-didnt-go-too-well/

 

 

Uh huh.  Saw that here back in the day.  (I even posted in that thread) Apparently you think it's dispositive?  ('This' place hasn't had a stellar reputation 'over there', either, through the years.  Through threads like this are certainly in the right direction.)

[sullis02]

On 4/17/2018 at 6:09 PM, fas42 said:

 

I find there are at least two levels - a transistor radio leaves so much out that the sins are not obvious - the jist of the music is in place, and you get the overall message; when a system becomes ambitious you hear more of the fine detail of the recording, and the damage being done to that fine detail by the playback chain. It's the elimination of the latter that's absolutely critcial ... what happens is that a competent rig allows one to relax in the same way as listening casually to a transistor radio, even though the sound level is far, far greater, and what you are hearing is so much more detailed.

 

The arguments you construct are built on a great many assumptions.   You presume things to be axiomatic, that actually require proof. 

 

That is the 'lesson'  of research into cognitive biases, btw.  

 

It's also silly on its face to claim that the 'damage' to the signal heard via  transistor radio playback is somehow more comfortable to listen to, than  the 'damage' to 'fine detail' of a more 'ambitious' yet incompetent system.   

 

How about just acknowledging that your 'sighted', subjective listening is riddled with potential biasing factors. There's no shame in it.    

 

 

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, sullis02 said:

 

 

Uh huh.  Saw that here back in the day.  (I even posted in that thread) Apparently you think it's dispositive?  ('This' place hasn't had a stellar reputation 'over there', either, through the years.  Through threads like this are certainly in the right direction.)

 

Dispositive? No. Just a small taste of impressions gathered over a few years from those here who have spent time on HA, which you are already aware of, so no matter. You say threads like this are certainly in the right direction. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by that?

[fas42]

3 hours ago, sullis02 said:

 

The arguments you construct are built on a great many assumptions.   You presume things to be axiomatic, that actually require proof. 

 

That is the 'lesson'  of research into cognitive biases, btw.  

 

It's also silly on its face to claim that the 'damage' to the signal heard via  transistor radio playback is somehow more comfortable to listen to, than  the 'damage' to 'fine detail' of a more 'ambitious' yet incompetent system.   

 

How about just acknowledging that your 'sighted', subjective listening is riddled with potential biasing factors. There's no shame in it.    

 

 

 

It's axiomatic for me, because I experience it. I don't have to prove that the rays of the sum make me feel warm - I just 'know' it, because it happens every time I go out out into the daylight. Conventional ambitious audio playback makes me feel very distressed, very quickly, because I can hear all the things it's doing wrong - once you become aware of some factor that you were blissfully ignorant of before, it then smacks you in the face every time you come across it from then on ... part of the human condition. Trying to go into some robotic, sciencey framework, to deal with it, doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

 

Those who are very happy with their systems as is should perhaps ignore me - those who are curious are warned that it may become a deep itch if you realise what is possible ...

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Those who are very happy with their systems as is should perhaps ignore me...

 

It's about time that you got something right!

[Rexp]

On 18/04/2018 at 6:09 AM, fas42 said:

 

I find there are at least two levels - a transistor radio leaves so much out that the sins are not obvious - the jist of the music is in place, and you get the overall message; when a system becomes ambitious you hear more of the fine detail of the recording, and the damage being done to that fine detail by the playback chain. It's the elimination of the latter that's absolutely critcial ... what happens is that a competent rig allows one to relax in the same way as listening casually to a transistor radio, even though the sound level is far, far greater, and what you are hearing is so much more detailed.

 

Normal high end, or hifi, very rarely gets this right - the difference is, yes, dramatic - and definitely makes the effort to achieve convincing playback competely worth it.

Agreed if referring to digital playback, analog playback much easier to get right.

[adamdea]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

It's axiomatic for me, because I experience it. I don't have to prove that the rays of the sum make me feel warm - I just 'know' it, because it happens every time I go out out into the daylight. Conventional ambitious audio playback makes me feel very distressed, very quickly, because I can hear all the things it's doing wrong - once you become aware of some factor that you were blissfully ignorant of before, it then smacks you in the face every time you come across it from then on ... part of the human condition.

It doesn't sound much fun.

[sullis02]

18 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Dispositive? No. Just a small taste of impressions gathered over a few years from those here who have spent time on HA, which you are already aware of, so no matter. You say threads like this are certainly in the right direction. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by that?

 

Threads that privilege science and reason over 'I experienced it, therefore it is true', and take subjectivist sophists like Herb Reichert to task.

 

Btw, you did *read* that CA thread on HA , yes?   Even leaving out my (krabapple) posts, the opinions are hardly uniformly negative.  One may also cull out the posts that are simply misinformation (like the claim  that controversial HA posts are 'deleted' and the user's history scrubbed).   So I wonder how anyone could find it dispositive. 

 

 

[sullis02]

6 hours ago, Rexp said:

Agreed if referring to digital playback, analog playback much easier to get right.

 

Very much the opposite.  

[Rt66indierock]

On 4/19/2018 at 3:47 PM, fas42 said:

 

It's axiomatic for me, because I experience it. I don't have to prove that the rays of the sum make me feel warm - I just 'know' it, because it happens every time I go out out into the daylight. Conventional ambitious audio playback makes me feel very distressed, very quickly, because I can hear all the things it's doing wrong - once you become aware of some factor that you were blissfully ignorant of before, it then smacks you in the face every time you come across it from then on ... part of the human condition. Trying to go into some robotic, sciencey framework, to deal with it, doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

 

Those who are very happy with their systems as is should perhaps ignore me - those who are curious are warned that it may become a deep itch if you realise what is possible ...

 

The way I look at this you would be very distressed with one of my most important musical influences and enough of a favorite that I traveled to Austin Texas to hear them play together again in 2016. All American Music by the Flatlanders was only issued on 8 Track. I wouldn't miss their music because the format was hardly high fidelity. 

[fas42]

16 hours ago, adamdea said:

It doesn't sound much fun.

 

Ummm, yes ... I gave away fiddling with audio for many years, because I couldn't get the standard happening consistently - the frustration wore me down ...

 

I'm much, much happier listening to lo-fi - yes, those 8 Tracks - than ambitious rigs getting it wrong - I don't need the quality to be tip top with very ordinary gear; a bit like using an old bomb of a car to get from A to B - the most important thing in the journey was achieved.