|
Post by pinkie on Jul 5, 2014 13:26:25 GMT
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! I remember attending a course "marketing for accountants" a year or so ago, where personalities were classified into 4 types Driver, Expressive, Analytical and Amiables We had 2 amiables (ahhh!) 3 analyticals, 4 Expressives and 17 drivers in the class. bretthard.in/2012/06/The-4-personality-types/I was one of the drivers. The lecturer couldn't understand - we should have been a class full of analyticals being accountants. I pointed out to her that for a session with the same CPD provider, in the same venue on Capital Taxes and Trusts, there would be 500 attendees. The other 474 missing today were analyticals!
|
|
|
Post by welder on Jul 5, 2014 14:44:23 GMT
Having waded through the above batch of posts I’ve come to realise that I’m just not taking the whole audio thing seriously enough; Chinese philosophy, Marxism, whole perceptions of self and no doubt still to come the rise and fall of empires based around a pile of electronics..............good grief. I like tinkering with the kit.That's what the hobby is about. I’m interested in the reproduction of sound. That’s what all this kit does; it reproduces sound, any sound, not just what an individual may call music. I’m going to talk to some chickens. They make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 5, 2014 14:46:45 GMT
It starts and ends with the music. If the kit can make the music better that's great. Working out what is going on in the head I find interesting, but I do talk to my dogs a lot too
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 5, 2014 14:50:41 GMT
I work in the a field where sensory issues cause major issues to the people I work with. Each person sensory issues is different so a person might be hypersentive in one area and hyposenstive in another. Its get even more complicated as peoples sensory issues can very as their sensory filters change in the day, so for instance noise might be really painful one minute to being hardly able to hear the next. I guess what I am trying to say is the brain a complex organism that we still learning to understand. This does not make either view point right or wrong
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 5, 2014 14:53:30 GMT
Of course the big question is: If a hi-fi is playing in the forest and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make any sound at all?
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 5, 2014 14:55:41 GMT
That's a hell of a length of mains cable..........
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 15:56:30 GMT
That’s what all this kit does; it reproduces sound, any sound, not just what an individual may call music. Of course, but surely the 'end game', if you will, is for that sound to increase the enjoyment of the music you play through the kit? If not, I don't see the purpose of being into hi-fi, unless it's just to tinker around with boxes. Whatever turns you on, I guess! Marco.
|
|
|
Post by Pinch on Jul 5, 2014 16:00:16 GMT
Some really interesting comments chaps! And apologies, Welder; alas, making sense was never my strongest suit, though I do like chickens. 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. Thanks Marco. I think it might be useful here to draw a distinction between our sensory experiences, and the judgements that we make about those experiences. The latter - like any judgements - are very plausibly susceptible to error, and (arguably) the experiences themselves are, too, in certain kinds of circumstance (e.g., sensory illusions/hallucinations). The extreme subjectivist principle was just that a listener cannot be wrong in their judgements about their own experiences, and so the idea would be that any judgement a listener made about their experience is guaranteed to be true. I suspect that there are good counterexamples to this claim, and - interestingly - that they needn't be cases that also involve sensory error. That is, going wrong about our own experiences doesn't require that, in some sense, our experiences are going wrong. This is just a roundabout way of saying that it's not just cases in which our senses are fooled that we need to be wary about, and really I'm guessing that the bigger risk in the case of hifi is of errors of judgement, rather than sensory errors. This ties in with something you said earlier: Also, in terms of 'subjectivist vs. objectivist' - the views of the respective protagonists are rarely the problem, but rather how those views are expressed. The key is knowing how to offer an opinion on the subject constructively, without simultaneously demeaning the contrary (equally valid) views of one's 'opponent' - or worse, implying that they are 'deluded', simply because their opinions cannot be 'proven' by current scientific understanding.... I agree wholeheartedly that, in these matters, there's no good reason why discussions should not be perfectly cordial, but this is consistent with firmly believing that one's interlocutors have made false judgements, and hold erroneous views. Only if we suppose that a listener's judgements about their own experiences are guaranteed to true, should we also suppose that everyone's judgements are equally valid, since - in this case - the presence of conflicting judgements would have to be explained by experiential differences between listeners. That is, everyone's judgements must be right, so - since they also happen to differ - we'd must suppose that this reflects differences in their respective experiences. However, once we introduce the possibility of incorrect judgements about our own experiences, then the presence of conflict may well, in some cases, be explained by the fact that some people are right, and some are wrong. It's obviously a tricky issue, though, since even if we suppose that we can go wrong about our own experiences, there's still a strong presumption that, when it comes to matters concerning our own states of mind, we have a certain amount of authority. Anyway, apologies for rambling everyone, it's an interesting issue
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on Jul 5, 2014 16:13:41 GMT
but to put it simply , an objectivist will argue that the reality of the music signal can be known 100% through measurement . Not true at all old boy ! Dave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 16:17:10 GMT
I have a very simple take on all this. If I agree with something - its right. If I disagree with something - its wrong. Sound reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by welder on Jul 5, 2014 17:01:54 GMT
That’s what all this kit does; it reproduces sound, any sound, not just what an individual may call music. Of course, but surely the 'end game', if you will, is for that sound to increase the enjoyment of the music you play through the kit? If not, I don't see the purpose of being into hi-fi, unless it's just to tinker around with boxes. Whatever turns you on, I guess! Marco. You know Marco, if I’m brutally honest I can’t say with hand on heart that better reproduction than the standard I have now and have had for many years now would increase my level of enjoyment of the music I play. Most systems I’ve listened to over the years have had their strengths and weaknesses, but the overall quality of reproduction technically speaking seems to fall into a fairly narrow range for all but the most exceptional. To my ears at least the exception would be loudspeakers which still manage to range from the truly awful to stunning. My interest in audio reproduction wasn’t fuelled by a desire for better quality music. It was my job for many years and if my memory serves me I didn’t play a single tune for years, but spent 9 hours a day trying to improve audio reproduction. I have a love of music on the one hand and a technical interest in audio on the other. These forums (pretty much all Hi Fi forums) are in general about audio equipment. That is to say they are not music appreciation forums (okay there is overlap) so I get fairly perplexed when I get called names for stating an interest on Hi Fi forums in the technical aspects of a technical discipline, the reproduction of sound. It was my work, now it’s a bit of a hobby. The music however is something else entirely. Other contributors state that for them it’s all about the music; I don’t call them names and try to shoehorn them into some convenient but largely meaningless box in order to take the piss out of them. For me audio is about the equipment, the theories and finally the goal of accurate reproduction of a source. Oh yea, the music sounds great through the kit too.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 17:13:24 GMT
We all need to learn, as long as the individual makes their own mistakes or chases rainbows from their own choice. Not because some forum ****bag (you know who you are) has arranged products to be shilled and scammed so as they make money from peoples mistakes, and then compile it by creating the next error to follow it next month, as was the function of hi-fi mags. We don't need that stupidity anymore.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 19:55:05 GMT
You know Marco, if I’m brutally honest I can’t say with hand on heart that better reproduction than the standard I have now and have had for many years now would increase my level of enjoyment of the music I play. Most systems I’ve listened to over the years have had their strengths and weaknesses, but the overall quality of reproduction technically speaking seems to fall into a fairly narrow range for all but the most exceptional. To my ears at least the exception would be loudspeakers which still manage to range from the truly awful to stunning. My interest in audio reproduction wasn’t fuelled by a desire for better quality music. It was my job for many years and if my memory serves me I didn’t play a single tune for years, but spent 9 hours a day trying to improve audio reproduction. I have a love of music on the one hand and a technical interest in audio on the other. These forums (pretty much all Hi Fi forums) are in general about audio equipment. That is to say they are not music appreciation forums (okay there is overlap) so I get fairly perplexed when I get called names for stating an interest on Hi Fi forums in the technical aspects of a technical discipline, the reproduction of sound. It was my work, now it’s a bit of a hobby. The music however is something else entirely. Other contributors state that for them it’s all about the music; I don’t call them names and try to shoehorn them into some convenient but largely meaningless box in order to take the piss out of them. For me audio is about the equipment, the theories and finally the goal of accurate reproduction of a source. Oh yea, the music sounds great through the kit too. Hi John, No worries. If that's what does it for you, that's cool, and I certainly wouldn't slag you off for it. However, I'm into hi-fi for very different reasons, which of course I've already explained Marco.
|
|
|
Post by flatpopely on Jul 5, 2014 20:09:52 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.htmlAnd my LP12 saw of a PL71 and SP10 and numerous others, just saying in my subjectivist opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 20:23:01 GMT
Well you would say that seeing as you are trade selling Linn LP12 add ons. This is an example of the spamming that is ruining forums.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 5, 2014 20:29:37 GMT
We have established that Andrew is no longer in the trade selling LP12 acessories.
|
|
Marco
Rank: Trio
Banned
Posts: 242
|
Post by Marco on Jul 5, 2014 20:31:20 GMT
I believe that Andrew was merely expressing his opinion as an audio enthusiast and LP12 owner, which he's entitled to do.
Marco.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Jul 5, 2014 20:32:59 GMT
From Audioflat.co.ukAudioFlat no longer exists as a company making Hi-Fi products. Thanks to all who bought a RubiKon from us, a product we still believe is the best subchassis for the Linn LP12. We just didn't have the time to dedicate to making them and running a business, we tried! You can still contact us via our forum. Andrew & Mark. AudioFlat
|
|
|
Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew on Jul 5, 2014 20:53:03 GMT
Well he said exactly the same things when he was spending years spamming the forums, so that should be taken into account when people put value on his judgements / opinions.
We shall see about the company, he is still a trader within the audio industry with his other business. Why maintain a forum for promoting non existent products.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2014 21:02:02 GMT
I would place myself firmly on the objectivist side of the line. For me the key difference between subjectivists and objectivists is that objectivists generally aim to believe things on the basis of evidence. The scientific method is how we assess evidence and arrive at knowledge (justified true belief). There are way too many snake oil salesmen out there to put faith in just my ears and the latest fashion.
Lawrence
|
|