Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 8:13:07 GMT
Hi Marco. I’ve taken the points you mention as part of the hobby. I appreciate not everyone does. If I was to take up painting for example hopefully I wouldn’t start by using a roller. It seems quite reasonable to me that one would learn at least a bit about the different paints available, what brushes give what effects, before I started on my masterpiece and again hopefully, I would learn more about techniques and the more technical aspects as I progressed. That’s me though and I’m sure there are people who just pick up a roller and start painting. Most of those I reckon end up as decorators. Hi John, Yup. However, as they say: each to his or her own. First and foremost, I'm a music lover, but I also love good sound, so that means I have an interest in hi-fi - but really only as far as the 'sound' goes, and how in turn that improves my enjoyment of music (the primary directive). The boxes and cables (and the tweaking of such) are only a means to an end. Essentially, therefore, the actual 'mechanics' of the process are of little interest to me - only the final result Marco. P.S Lovely CDP and DAC, Richard. I think I've seen them before!
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jul 5, 2014 8:17:09 GMT
I had a L-07D, www.soundhifi.com/L-07D/ the arm was poor and it wasn't a real PLL as the Technics MKII's are. I have since spoken with dealers who used to sell them, and they all say the same. Really great looking deck but a SP-10 in a proper plinth with a modern arm will blow it away (YMMV). Dave
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 5, 2014 8:21:12 GMT
I'd love to compare an L-07D with my own deck, Dave. Pioneer PL-71, too. Only then could I really evaluate where I stand. Not that it really matters as I love the sound I'm achieving.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 8:24:40 GMT
I had a L-07D, www.soundhifi.com/L-07D/ the arm was poor and it wasn't a real PLL as the Technics MKII's are. I have since spoken with dealers who used to sell them, and they all say the same. Really great looking deck but a SP-10 in a proper plinth with a modern arm will blow it away (YMMV). Dave That's definitely not been my experience, during the times when I've listened to both. Marco.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 8:31:14 GMT
I'd love to compare an L-07D with my own deck, Dave. Pioneer PL-71, too. Only then could I really evaluate where I stand. Not that it really matters as I love the sound I'm achieving. Been there, done that... Lost the first one (against the L-07D), marginally, when my T/T was in a less optimised state of modification than it is now, won the second one against quite of a few examples of such, although I would say that the SL-1210 needs a fair bit of attention before it is capable of outperforming a PL-71 - and even then whether is does so or not will be subjective. Marco.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 8:34:25 GMT
Well my PL71 saw off an SP10 with no difficulty at a Bake-off at my gaff a couple of years ago, my comments were dry and grey - took a lot of the life from the music. No Martin if a L-O7D came up again unless at silly money I wouldn't buy it to replace the PL71. Though if this came up I would, and find the money for it. www.thevintageknob.org/pioneer-Exclusive_P3.html
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jul 5, 2014 8:39:06 GMT
Hi Martin Neither the L-07D or the PL-71 have a proper PLL so the pitch stability is both measurably poorer and audible on sustained piano notes. Of course, very few SP-10's have been properly serviced and need that after 30+ years ! Sleep well Martin, you know your SL-1210 will outperform the L-07D and PL-71. Dave
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 5, 2014 8:41:55 GMT
Gosh yes, I've read about them but never seen one.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 8:53:01 GMT
Sleep well Martin, you know your SL-1210 will outperform the L-07D and PL-71. Dave Well it should do, given that Martin's heavily modified SL-1210 costs many times more than a PL-71. Try comparing a stock SL-1210 against a PL-71, and then see what happens...!! Marco.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 5, 2014 9:06:04 GMT
Well pinch , that sure is a onerous task you request – but to put it simply of the top of my head – so please no pedants
Ontology is concerned with what is and the nature of things and epistemology is the theory of knowledge ,its status , foundations and how we know what is .
Objectivists believe there is a world that exists outside of consciousness and language and that workings of that world can be known for sure and what can be known is independent of our language and consciousness. Their preferred model is that of science – deductive nomologoical explanations based on scientific method - theory , experimentation , prediction and repetition .
They believe that knowledge derived from this method is true , objective fully explains a world which can be known .
Now science as largely got on with its job and not worried about the theoretical foundations of its knowledge our how it is acquired , there focus as been on pure practicality .
However philosophy and the social sciences have attempted to appropriate objectivist theories to explain the world , this as given rise to many theories with an objective foundation , functionalism , structuralism, structural Marxism and even Freudian psychoanalysis .
However this simple objective empiricism as been attacked by a plethora of theories that can be loosely termed subjective and essentially they argue the world can not be known to us definitively because it can only be know through language and there is no way of knowing that our knowledge is true or all there is to be known . Our language attempts to make an explanatory purchase on reality but we can only know the world through language and thus it is always subjective. There is an unbreakable hermetic barrier between language and reality . Red is red because of language rules not any inherent aspect of reality .
Additionally , repetition and prediction are not guarantees of truth and there is no guarantee that our explanations are true or the whole story . Thus a theory may allow prediction and repetition but there is no guarantee it explains 100% of the phenomena being explained and measurement may correlate with phenomena but again there is no guarantee the measurement explains it all . Acceptance and the end of scientific investigation in to any phenomena is largely practical
This gives rise to theories/studies which shows how human beings construct reality through language , from ethnography to Wittgenstein .
In essence , language is subjective and language is our only means to understand the world and there will always be an epistemological gap between language and reality and scientific knowledge is nothing but a special form of useful knowledge but it is not true .
In turn , This gave rise to the sociology of science , in which studies of how scientific knowledge became accepted were undertaken and emphasised the social element , rhetoric , culture , status , financing were as influential in the dissemination and acceptance of knowledge as actual pure scientific method . Thomas Kuhn argued that science was dominated by paradigms and these paradigms stopped enquiry or explanation outside the paradigm – they acted as normative barriers to enquiry , until eventually there was a knowledge revolution and all old knowledge was abandoned and taken over by a revolutionary new paradigm
Karl Popper in an attempt to save knowledge from this subjective black hole and maintain the status of scientific knowledge against what he considered the claptrap of marxism came up with theory of falsification , which is a concession to subjectivist principle of an unbridgeable gap between language and reality meaning there can be no such thing as truth . Nothing can be known for sure , scientific knowledge retains a special explanatory status because it as not yet been falsified .
All explanations of the world must have an ontological and epistemological foundation and therefore must have a place on the objective –subjective axis .
Now in terms of hifi , much of this debate as been poorly appropriated , but to put it simply , an objectivist will argue that the reality of the music signal can be known 100% through measurement . The musical signal is a real abstract entity made up of physical properties which can be known and predicted through ,measurement . A subjectivist will argue that much of the science of music as been appropriated and it does not have a 100% handle on the musical signal or of the reality of listening to music . Listening to music is a subjective experience , our scientific knowledge of what is involved in the reproduction of the music signal in your listening room is poor and ultimately is analogous to explaining my love of Francis Bacon by measuring the canvas .
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 5, 2014 9:27:46 GMT
Now in terms of hifi , much of this debate as been poorly appropriated , but to put it simply , an objectivist will argue that the reality of the music signal can be known 100% through measurement . The musical signal is a real abstract entity made up of physical properties which can be known and predicted through ,measurement . A subjectivist will argue that much of the science of music as been appropriated and it does not have a 100% handle on the musical signal or of the reality of listening to music . Listening to music is a subjective experience , our scientific knowledge of what is involved in the reproduction of the music signal in your listening room is poor and ultimately is analogous to explaining my love of Francis Bacon by measuring the canvas . You took a while to get there, DQ, but with your final paragraph I am in almost complete agreement. However, for me it does not preclude the likelihood that, as science gets better at measuring what we hear, and we further our understanding of the brain, we will have a fuller set of objective tools in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 9:43:29 GMT
The world is made up of dichotomies that create our reality. The Chinese have had a a handle on this for thousands of years, it is called yin - yang theory. Quite simply subjective wouldn't exist unless it had its mirror in the objective, because if one didn't exist then the other would be a fait accompli and wouldn't even need a word to describe it, as it would just *be*.
Hot - cold, up-down, in - out, male - female, sweet - sour. Everything within perception *has* to have an opposite otherwise it wouldn't exist. And it is the energy of the conflict between opposites that drives the universe, as more and more physicists are beginning to discover.
So all the multiples of dichotomies we are faced with creates individuality. That individuality is where we sit on the line of each dichotomy and that is called perception. A simple explanation - if I am sitting at an ambient temp of 20degC and I move room to 25degC then I perceive it as hotter. If however someone else is sitting in a room at 30degC and they move to my new room they will think it is colder. So with all dichotomy perception it depends where your norm or accepted value is on the *line* between absolutes.
This applies to all aspects of human perception including music and hi-fi, which is why we are individuals within a loosely formulated gestalt.
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on Jul 5, 2014 9:44:14 GMT
Thanks DQ! I should have said that I am reasonably familiar with some of the broader issues and disputes concerning the objective/subjective distinction (I'm an academic by trade) but the stage setting is useful nonetheless (though, I disagree with some of the broader epistemological/metaphysical ideas that you appear to endorse on the basis of the role played by language in our understanding of things, but this is not the place to get into that!). Now in terms of hifi , much of this debate as been poorly appropriated , but to put it simply , an objectivist will argue that the reality of the music signal can be known 100% through measurement . The musical signal is a real abstract entity made up of physical properties which can be known and predicted through ,measurement . A subjectivist will argue that much of the science of music as been appropriated and it does not have a 100% handle on the musical signal or of the reality of listening to music . Listening to music is a subjective experience , our scientific knowledge of what is involved in the reproduction of the music signal in your listening room is poor and ultimately is analogous to explaining my love of Francis Bacon by measuring the canvas . Your statement of the positions as it pertains to hifi is interesting! I can see that, so characterised, they are indeed mutually exclusive, and - so stated - subjectivism appears to me to be the more plausible view; after all, an auditory experience is an essential component in any event of listening, and presumably our goal pursuing better SQ is (at least in part) to achieve auditory experiences that we find pleasurable. And very plausibly, however much we examine an electrical signal, this can only be at best rough guide to the sort of experience that it will prompt in any given listener, given the myriad of other factors on the listener's side that will play some role in determining this (aside: I wonder if a less implausible objectivist position might be one which broadened its focus to include both the signal and the underlying psychological condition of the listener, as considered from a third-person perspective by cognitive psychology). Still, this plausible subjectivist position is consistent with rejecting any number of more extreme ideas, which might be labelled 'subjectivist' in the traditional sense of that term (e.g., the idea that a listener cannot be wrong about their own experiences, and so if they believe they hear a difference then there is a difference). Anyway, thanks for taking the time
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 10:15:23 GMT
(e.g., the idea that a listener cannot be wrong about their own experiences, and so if they believe they hear a difference then there is a difference). Hi Pinch, As a diehard subjectivist, and much as I (ultimately) trust my senses, I also believe that they can be easily fooled - and there is ample real evidence available proving that fact, which I accept. *However*, what I don't accept is the notion that the above supplies the explanation EVERY TIME when our subjective listening experiences in audio can't be proven by measurements and/or 'currently accepted wisdom'. For me, until such times as measurements can irrefutably explain everything that we genuinely hear in audio, they will only ever form part of the story. Marco.
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Jul 5, 2014 10:18:43 GMT
o pinch , you hussled me for what's its worth , whilst the music signal is clearly electrical , I think there must be more to it than the sum of its measurable electrical parts and as such i don't think it is necessary to broaden the objective investigation to pyscho- acoustic elements . Many differences heard in an individuals listening room i think are amenable to others and dont require that blody phrase "expectation bias" to explain them . Hifi is ultimately a solipsistic experience so ultimate proof or explanation is a chimera . My answer is forums and people sharing their experiences , if you ignore the extremes then a consensus and working truth arises and people can use this as a means to inform themselves . I am sanguine about people using £700 mains leads and hearing differences as long as those differences are honest and have perspective, the only caveat I have against this is people charging thousands for materials which can he had for pennies and pounds without explaining the cost and with no explanation I can only assume the cost is premised on profit motive rather than efficacy .
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 10:55:41 GMT
Also what is little understood is that each individual is a dichotomy in themselves, as we all have internal conflict between differing perceptions, for example.
You have a physical being, the one that you see in the mirror everyday, it is a biological organic machine that can break down and will wear out, being organic it is also subject to other biological machines hijacking it for their own purposes (fungi, bacteria and viruses).
You are also a reasoning and calculating being, this is the person doing the observing of you in the mirror. It is a biological organic computer that as with the modern electronic version can be subject to overload, information loss, or when the program gets corrupted, crashing.
Within these two physical personas is the energetic persona that makes it all work, and also provides the emotional aspects to your life. From the spark of life given to you at conception this energy is the means by which everything “works”, your energetic being. In Chinese. It is referred to as Chi (Qi), in Japanese Ki and in India Prana. It can manifest itself in many different ways that western science is only just beginning to understand.
I wrote that many years ago in relation to my other life as a Tai-Chi Chuan (taijiquan) and Chi-Kung (qigong)instructor who runs his own school. But it is very applicable here. Music activates different aspects of self and most of those reactions are entirely subjective or perception based. The physical persona or Li in Chinese is activate by rhythm and beat structures, it makes the body move and react. The intellectual persona or Yi reacts to musical structure, note pattern. The energetic persona or Chi(qi)reacts to key changes and recognition paths that create an emotional involvement with the music. Rarely are these seen in isolation but different people have different emphasis within the mix.
This individuality is why we will never have consensus and people will make different choices. The guys way back who would put a Goodmans 18p on a plywood open baffle with maybe a trebax to back it up for pumping out Ska and Rocksteady in a basement in Brixton is obviously not the same motivation as the guy who listens to chamber music in the quiet of his own home on a pair of old Quad electrostatics. Neither are wrong both are individuals and the likelihood of them even agreeing as to what is music is unlikely. So can we all completely agree on choice, equally unlikely.
So we are back to my original point, the only things that are important are ears and available choice and an open mind to choose with. That choice has to be subjective as my argument dictates. The objective only applies to those people who service that market that is created by that desire. The rest of the people who use the objective in magazines or on forums to try and create choice are purely doing so for egotistical and / or deluded reasons.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 11:20:47 GMT
...or to satisfy the biases of their 'objective belief system' (the opposite of the subjective one we have).
Marco.
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on Jul 5, 2014 11:56:59 GMT
Also what is little understood is that each individual is a dichotomy in themselves, as we all have internal conflict between differing perceptions, for example. You have a physical being, the one that you see in the mirror everyday, it is a biological organic machine that can break down and will wear out, being organic it is also subject to other biological machines hijacking it for their own purposes (fungi, bacteria and viruses). You are also a reasoning and calculating being, this is the person doing the observing of you in the mirror. It is a biological organic computer that as with the modern electronic version can be subject to overload, information loss, or when the program gets corrupted, crashing. Within these two physical personas is the energetic persona that makes it all work, and also provides the emotional aspects to your life. From the spark of life given to you at conception this energy is the means by which everything “works”, your energetic being. In Chinese. It is referred to as Chi (Qi), in Japanese Ki and in India Prana. It can manifest itself in many different ways that western science is only just beginning to understand. I wrote that many years ago in relation to my other life as a Tai-Chi Chuan (taijiquan) and Chi-Kung (qigong)instructor who runs his own school. But it is very applicable here. Music activates different aspects of self and most of those reactions are entirely subjective or perception based. The physical persona or Li in Chinese is activate by rhythm and beat structures, it makes the body move and react. The intellectual persona or Yi reacts to musical structure, note pattern. The energetic persona or Chi(qi)reacts to key changes and recognition paths that create an emotional involvement with the music. Rarely are these seen in isolation but different people have different emphasis within the mix. This individuality is why we will never have consensus and people will make different choices. The guys way back who would put a Goodmans 18p on a plywood open baffle with maybe a trebax to back it up for pumping out Ska and Rocksteady in a basement in Brixton is obviously not the same motivation as the guy who listens to chamber music in the quiet of his own home on a pair of old Quad electrostatics. Neither are wrong both are individuals and the likelihood of them even agreeing as to what is music is unlikely. So can we all completely agree on choice, equally unlikely. So we are back to my original point, the only things that are important are ears and available choice and an open mind to choose with. That choice has to be subjective as my argument dictates. The objective only applies to those people who service that market that is created by that desire. The rest of the people who use the objective in magazines or on forums to try and create choice are purely doing so for egotistical and / or deluded reasons. Perhaps the reasoning vs emotional side of us might also explain why some people like an ultra 'high-res' system where every single detail in the music is the priority, whereas some people are much more interested in the 'big picture' and the perceived emotional connection that this brings ... www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/Having done some degree of study into 'personality types' when learning NLP, it would be interesting to see what correlation, if any, there is between these traits and our preferences for the kit we use. I might have a go at that some time if I can find some willing victims!
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 5, 2014 12:03:51 GMT
You are also a reasoning and calculating being, this is the person doing the observing of you in the mirror. It is a biological organic computer that as with the modern electronic version can be subject to overload, information loss, or when the program gets corrupted, crashing. The brain, being a neural net, is a learning machine and uses multiple pathways that cannot be predicted - much like chaos theory. No linear program can emulate this, but as we start to understand how to build computers as neural nets then we will begin to understand how the brain processes emotions. AI still seems far away but we can learn lots in the meantime. We will always be different from each other, though, and hear different things when listening to the same piece of music on the same system.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 12:13:33 GMT
www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/Having done some degree of study into 'personality types' when learning NLP, it would be interesting to see what correlation, if any, there is between these traits and our preferences for the kit we use. I might have a go at that some time if I can find some willing victims! Hi Jules, That would be very interesting, so count me as a willing victim! I'm convinced that 'sciencey types', in general (for example), are attracted to certain types of systems.
|
|