Separate names with a comma.
The music is the goal always
Take it for what it is - a subjective audio reviewer desperate to maintain his job and “status” in the face of overwhelming evidence that his reviews don’t stand up to even a casual evaluation. Or are impacted by the advertising $ keeping him employed.
I have no issue with subjective reviews, but his diatribe is absurd and clearly demonstrates his insecurities and inability to understand the relationship between the science behind audio reproduction and the delivery of music from the components he “reviews”. This is not the first time Herb has gone on a rant - he did the same in the magazine he contributes to in an editorial about a year ago. As much as I enjoy JA’s measurements and the audio porn, I dropped my electronic subscription after his previous tantrum.
I got it I think. all an objectivist needs to do to become a fine bloke, is to start calling himself poet, artist or philosopher, and disregard objective reality or the means to try and understand it. very small effort on our part, and clearly it's for our own good.
the title of the article though, it could have been more explicit. I would have picked:
"I don't hate bananas when they're round and orange".
"I'm not racist, I have a friend who measures stuff".
Never underestimate the power of butt-hurt!
I'd have liked a title less metaphorically connected to the article though, how about:
"Don't quote me a middle school smattering of Newtonian Physics when I don't even have a grade school understanding of Newtonian physics"
"I and all my intellectual associates at Stereophile and AudioStream believe that Newton was a troll. Instead of trying to objectively ponder a falling apple, if he'd been blown off his roof by a hurricane, maybe he'd have developed a proper understanding of gravity, like wot I did!"
1869! I'm dying.
I shouldn't feed the trolls, and feel very bad for laughing so much.
I shouldn't laugh about all this, and feel very bad about it too. bad castleofargh!
Great article why I generally don’t participate in objectivist sound forums, I base my observations on what I like and which I prefer. This can be construed as blasphemous as I perceive these observations are fact...
Yes, I found the article enlightening in several respects ... but the biggest single take-away for me personally, is that I now believe that maybe we should be checking metaphorical hurricane survivors for signs of catastrophic brain damage. That's just a subjective opinion though.
Bad, bad, Dobby. Hey Castle, do you feel a sudden urge to iron your own hands?
There's nothing wrong with that as long as it stays within your solipsist world. Everyone else is too busy entertaining their own delusions!
ABX is the Kobayashi Maru of audiophiles.
"This apple tastes like iced tea...!"
(CC) Kevin, as he is eating a peach.
I'm not going to dig too deep into this false narrative, but mere observations are not facts as far as science is concerned. Facts are empirical evidence. If only you can verify your claims, then it is not empirical, and therefore not a fact. In order for it to be considered empirical evidence in this subject area, one must conduct a double blind test, or provide measurements. Now, given the corpus of electrical engineering and acoustics/audio engineering peer-reviewed material, we don't always need to cite individual studies because scientific consensus has established rules that we can use to invalidate claims made that are in direct violation of these rules (some of which include the basic laws of physics and materials science). For example, a copper conductor assembled into a interconnect in an identical configuration as a silver conductor can not be audibly differentiated because the rules that govern the frequency response of such a system would have coefficients that render the conductivity of the material (the only relevant differentiator) at nearly a factor of zero across the entirety of the audible frequency range, and well beyond it.
That was more in-depth than I initially intended, but I think it is as clear as I've ever articulated the scientific rebuttal of the copper vs. silver myth.
Exactly you proved my point, I'm out.
What point have you proved? That some guy sitting on his roof during a hurricane knows more about how weather systems work than a meteorologist? That digital audio data somehow does not conform to the demonstrated and proven principles of all digital data? That transducers, cables, amps, etc., do not conform to the principles of electrical engineering or the laws of physics? Are you "out" because you believe audio recording and reproduction is based on something other than the principles of digital technology, electrical engineering and the laws of physics?
Taking the usual definition of "audio" as being recorded and reproduced sound, there is no "Audio Without Numbers" and there never has been. How could you not know this, is it simply because you've read some reviewers who lie about/misrepresent this most basic of audio facts in order to dupe audiophiles?