[FYFL]

Might want to look at the title of the subforum you’ve been posting in for a day.

You didn’t notice that, but you hear differences in amplifiers? You may want to work on perception accuracy…

Ohhh wait, “subforum”.....
You mean, that dark corner where egos colide?

 

[FYFL]

He designs audio gear. More importantly, he SELLS audio gear.

Yeah..., he should do what most audio component designers do and give it away for free.

 

[bfreedma]

Ohhh wait, “subforum”.....
You mean, that dark corner where egos colide?

Nice attempt at snark to cover your failure to realize where you're posting.

Yeah..., he should do what most audio component designers do and give it away for free.

Do you not understand the Sales/Marketing impact on the interview? No one suggested he should give it away for free, but pretending this engineer is not prioritizing marketing over technical fact shows a lack of basic understanding of business in general.

 

[FYFL]

Nice attempt at snark to cover your failure to realize where you're posting.



Do you not understand the Sales/Marketing impact on the interview? No one suggested he should give it away for free, but pretending this engineer is not prioritizing marketing over technical fact shows a lack of basic understanding of business in general.

Are you suggesting that I should modify my views based on what header says? Lol
My opinions are and will be exactly the same while I'm here and long after I leave (which is pretty soon).
Also, how exactly are you going to (or claimed that you did somehow) apply your “science” to OG question while I gave you rational reasoning that interpretation of music is subjective and music itself is an artform of expressions that evolved over period of many years. I do realize that this “hobby corner” is consumed by licensed scientists and gurus of music industry but let me end my rant with simplest example/explanation on how personal preferences and choices influence what we hear in form of finished product (music). And in my opinion those same personal preferences choices could (perhaps should) apply in our own audio reproduction chain. As a consumers and music lovers. Because music is not a bunch of equations or science project but an artform.
So here's a short/stupid simple clip for all you “scientists”:


With that, I will show myself out from this fun place you call “science”. Lol

Take care.

 

[gregorio]

But keep in mind. My listening space isn't a pro, “monitoring” environment but a humble living space to enjoy my favorite tunes. And as such, it's full of compromises to combine both realities. A living space with decent listening environment.

We could of course argue about what constitutes a "decent listening environment" but even though my listening space is a pro-monitoring environment, it too is full of compromises although I'm pretty sure, significantly fewer than yours. If you could reduce those compromises (without affecting it's dual use) and at low cost, are you saying you wouldn't, that you'd rather spend a lot more for the goal of even more compromises or exactly the same compromises? If so, that's your choice of course although personally, I'd consider that an "hysterical goal".

[1] If I use logic in your argument then everything recorded pre1970’s would mandate tube gear for “honest”, truthful reproduction of artist/mastering intend.......
Interesting. Lol

[2] The problem I have with your firm believes and theories is that YOUR way is the “right” approach digest music...... what is that phrase, yeah, as the artist intended to be heard.
[3] I mean, honestly. If that's your goal and that's what drives you then fine. Go for it. And I wish you best if luck. But trying to impose those hysterical goals on others with totally different priorities and ways to enjoy music is a bit childish. No offence.

1. But you haven't used my logic, you've just invented something, called it my logic and then refuted what you yourself have invented! For example, we could discuss the logic you've invented if all your pre-1970's recordings are also the pre-1970's masters. If not, the logic you've invented falls down without even going any further! "Interesting. Lol"

2. Are you just going to just keep repeating that same game over and over in the hope that it eventually works? I've presented the facts! And in those instances where I've presented my own beliefs/goals/approach, I've been careful to state "me personally", which specifically means that it's NOT necessarily "right" for everyone else.
2a. My goal is to make my audio system as transparent (accurate) as possible, so I can get an emotional connection with the art rather than with my equipment. If I can achieve that to a perfect degree in at least some parts of my audio reproduction chain and at relatively little cost, then why wouldn't I? If you want to do something different that's entirely up to you, as I've said all along. Who is trying to impose "hysterical goals", with "totally different priorities" and who is being "a bit childish" here?

I thought it was just a place for people to exchange experiences, connect with fellow music enthusiasts and source of anything music/headphone/audio related.
Pretty sure there's another forum with cult based around numbers and graphs. I don't think this place is that.

It's neither of those places. This is a place for people to discuss the actual facts/science of sound, as the name states!

[1] Not really interested in lable you give him. [2] But he actually designs audio gear and that was his point of view.

1. But all of us must be interested in the label that YOU give him? If you're just going to invent a label then why can't I do the same?

2. Yes he does actually design audio gear but that's not all he does, he also markets audio gear. Therefore, how do you know "his point of view" is that of an audio gear designer rather than that of an audio gear marketer? Hint: He actually stated: "I know this isn't very scientific"!

Yeah..., he should do what most audio component designers do and give it away for free.

Most audio component designers/engineers don't give it away for free or sell it! Most audio component designers/engineers are just audio component engineers and leave the marketing to the marketing departments/personnel. I'm not sure why this and the above few points are all apparently so difficult to comprehend?

G

 

[bfreedma]

Are you suggesting that I should modify my views based on what header says? Lol
My opinions are and will be exactly the same while I'm here and long after I leave (which is pretty soon).
Also, how exactly are you going to (or claimed that you did somehow) apply your “science” to OG question while I gave you rational reasoning that interpretation of music is subjective and music itself is an artform of expressions that evolved over period of many years. I do realize that this “hobby corner” is consumed by licensed scientists and gurus of music industry but let me end my rant with simplest example/explanation on how personal preferences and choices influence what we hear in form of finished product (music). And in my opinion those same personal preferences choices could (perhaps should) apply in our own audio reproduction chain. As a consumers and music lovers. Because music is not a bunch of equations or science project but an artform.
So here's a short/stupid simple clip for all you “scientists”:


With that, I will show myself out from this fun place you call “science”. Lol

Take care.

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in actual discussion. And that no matter how compelling the evidence presented to you is, you won't change your opinion. The discussing here is referencing the technical performance of DACs, not your (or anyone else's) subjective preferences. Are you really unable to understand that the performance of electronics an entirely separate discussion from "how one individual prefers to digest content"?

This attitude is exactly what Paul McGowan is counting on to ensure Sales are prioritized over Facts for his client base.

We do agree on one thing - time for you to go to another subforum where subjectivism rules.

 

[FYFL]

We could of course argue about what constitutes a "decent listening environment" but even though my listening space is a pro-monitoring environment, it too is full of compromises although I'm pretty sure, significantly fewer than yours. If you could reduce those compromises (without affecting it's dual use) and at low cost, are you saying you wouldn't, that you'd rather spend a lot more for the goal of even more compromises or exactly the same compromises? If so, that's your choice of course although personally, I'd consider that an "hysterical goal".


1. But you haven't used my logic, you've just invented something, called it my logic and then refuted what you yourself have invented! For example, we could discuss the logic you've invented if all your pre-1970's recordings are also the pre-1970's masters. If not, the logic you've invented falls down without even going any further! "Interesting. Lol"

2. Are you just going to just keep repeating that same game over and over in the hope that it eventually works? I've presented the facts! And in those instances where I've presented my own beliefs/goals/approach, I've been careful to state "me personally", which specifically means that it's NOT necessarily "right" for everyone else.
2a. My goal is to make my audio system as transparent (accurate) as possible, so I can get an emotional connection with the art rather than with my equipment. If I can achieve that to a perfect degree in at least some parts of my audio reproduction chain and at relatively little cost, then why wouldn't I? If you want to do something different that's entirely up to you, as I've said all along. Who is trying to impose "hysterical goals", with "totally different priorities" and who is being "a bit childish" here?


It's neither of those places. This is a place for people to discuss the actual facts/science of sound, as the name states!

1. But all of us must be interested in the label that YOU give him? If you're just going to invent a label then why can't I do the same?

2. Yes he does actually design audio gear but that's not all he does, he also markets audio gear. Therefore, how do you know "his point of view" is that of an audio gear designer rather than that of an audio gear marketer? Hint: He actually stated: "I know this isn't very scientific"!

Most audio component designers/engineers don't give it away for free or sell it! Most audio component designers/engineers are just audio component engineers and leave the marketing to the marketing departments/personnel. I'm not sure why this and the above few points are all apparently so difficult to comprehend?

G

I'll be more then happy to break up your points and analogy to shreds in more intimate setting. I feel that this silliness took long enough already.

 

[FYFL]

Thanks for confirming that you aren't interested in actual discussion. And that no matter how compelling the evidence presented to you is, you won't change your opinion. The discussing here is referencing the technical performance of DACs, not your (or anyone else's) subjective preferences. Are you really unable to understand that the performance of electronics an entirely separate discussion from "how one individual prefers to digest content"?

This attitude is exactly what Paul McGowan is counting on to ensure Sales are prioritized over Facts for his client base.

We do agree on one thing - time for you to go to another subforum where subjectivism rules.

Lmao. Sure. Whatever.

 

[bfreedma]

I'll be more then happy to break up your points and analogy to shreds in more intimate setting. I feel that this silliness took long enough already.

You haven't succeeded with that yet - I see no reason to believe that you can. So yes, now would be a good time to exit.

Edit - how many snarky/fact free posts are you going to make after you said you were leaving?

 

[gregorio]

Also, how exactly are you going to (or claimed that you did somehow) apply your “science” to OG question while I gave you rational reasoning that interpretation of music is subjective and music itself is an artform of expressions that evolved over period of many years.

And in my opinion those same personal preferences choices could (perhaps should) apply in our own audio reproduction chain. As a consumers and music lovers. Because music is not a bunch of equations or science project but an artform.

You just love contradicting yourself. Music is an artform and it's subjective but we're not talking about music we talking about audio and so are you! You are talking about audio reproduction chains, an audio equipment designer and of course this thread is about DACs and Amps, which are obviously NOT musical instruments/devices, they are both audio devices. And audio was invented out of a science project, ENTIRELY based on science and governed by equations. You're perfectly entitled to believe it's some sort magic that isn't entirely based on science, just as you're perfectly entitled to believe the earth is flat and that 1+1=3 but of course, you'd be WRONG.

So here's a short/stupid simple clip for all you “scientists”:

So tell me, do you think it's clever or stupid to try and win your point by posting a beginners intro to Mixing vs Mastering to someone who's been a professional mixing and mastering engineer for nearly 30 years?

G

 

[gregorio]

[1] I'll be more then happy to break up your points and analogy to shreds in more intimate setting. [2] I feel that this silliness took long enough already.

1. Oh dear, that's a very bad start because I didn't even use any analogies in the post you responded to!

2. So why make it silly in the first place? Why don't you have a proper, serious discussion and stop with all the silliness?

G

 

[bigshot]

There are an awful lot of posts to catch up on... but then I see that the westie's discussion has degraded to answers like "lol, whatever". It sounds like he's got nothing really to say. Saves me some time that I can better spend somewhere else!

 

[old tech]

Incorrect. Most if not all recordings done in 50’s, 60’s even 70’s (to a certain degree) where done almost exclusively on tube based components. Consumer base at that time was using mostly tube based gear as well. There where no class D amps and very small percent of emerging solid state amplifiers that were of mediocre to poor quality as far as sound reproduction quality goes.
If I use logic in your argument then everything recorded pre1970’s would mandate tube gear for “honest”, truthful reproduction of artist/mastering intend.......
Interesting. Lol

The problem I have with your firm believes and theories is that you seem to imply that YOUR way is the “right” approach to digest music...... what is that phrase..., yeah, as the artist intended to be heard.
I mean, honestly. If that's your goal and that's what drives you then fine. Go for it. And I wish you best of luck. But trying to impose those hysterical goals on others with totally different priorities and ways to enjoy music is a bit childish. No offence. But I don't get it.

So using your logic, it is better to view a Monet through a distorted glass window than through clear glass to better appreciate the artist's fuzzy painting quality?

Again, you're confusing music production with music reproduction - one of the many underlying flaws in your discussion.

 

[sonitus mirus]

So using your logic, it is better to view a Monet through a distorted glass window than through clear glass to better appreciate the artist's fuzzy painting quality?

Again, you're confusing music production with music reproduction - one of the many underlying flaws in your discussion.

I suspect this is somewhat common, as I get the sense that oftentimes the expectation is for the system to be able to recreate the actual instruments being played, rather than simply playing back the recorded audio. This holds especially true for discussions where bit depth and sample rate are discussed.

 

[bigshot]

There is something to be said in favor of acoustically recorded records played back on an acoustic phonograph. It isn’t at all natural sounding, but the recordings weren’t intended to sound natural. They deliberately emphasized wolf tones and horn resonances to create a euphoric sound that wasn’t realistic.

But with the introduction of hi-fi in the early 50s, the stated goal was as clean and balanced as technology would allow. We don’t need antique equipment to play The Beatles.