That is indeed characteristic of 'objectivists' - they're attached to their models and those attachments (which are emotional) cause them to deny the content of other people's (i.e. subjectivists) senses.
Positive Feedback: Article on Jitter.
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
That is indeed characteristic of 'objectivists' - they're attached to their models and those attachments (which are emotional) cause them to deny the content of other people's (i.e. subjectivists) senses.
That's what they should have done to the acousticians who ruined Carnegie Hall as well as Cyril Harris for designing three of the worst sounding halls ever in history.
It was obvious to anyone who attended Carnegie on frequent basis. Some of the Carnegie crowd argue that pre-rennovation, every seat in the house was primo; now, there are certain seats that are primo and other where you might as well sit behind a column.
Whatever, I hope they never, ever decide to rennovate the last of the great US halls, eg BSH!
- If all the 'bad' audio designers would spend time in jail, the world would also be a better place. 
- If all the 'bad' audio designers would spend time in jail, the world would also be a better place.
Were they not all bad at one point in there career?
Thank you for making my point for me Myles. I posted on another thread about hearing versus measurements that acoustics as a science is still in a very primitive state of development. Some disagreed with me but this and so many other failures show that the best the best practitioners of this science can do is often hit or miss. And far too often it's a miss. Since the effect of acoustics is the overwhelming preponderance of what we hear at live concerts (at least we do know that much) it's crazy to say that any of the equipment reflected in the current technology is accurate. How can you say that when the target goal is hardly understood. One thing anyone with even normal hearing should be able to tell immediately is that none of the sounds produced by our technology is remotely like what you hear at a live performance. And if you've ever heard live unamplified performances at great or even good concert halls, you know how much more pleasing most people find that sound compared to what comes out of a phonograph or CD player, any phonograph or CD player. This is why IMO investment in what has become ludicrously expensive equipment expecting the kind of results you hear live is a bad investment. Only a small segment of the potential market is duped. The rest of it sees the high end as not much better or for that matter different from i-pods with earbuds or HT sound systems. While there are clearly differences, IMO they are usually not so great as to represent a rational expense for most people. Frankly I think you can do as well or better at a small fraction of the cost with vintage equipment and DIY projects. Too bad the old red blooded American boy spirit of tinkering, experimenting, building, that characterized our culture for so long has given way to the couch potato and video game culture of modern youth. When I was that age......
Examples please. I have heard this before and slight variations on the same theme.
---- That, among other inexpensive and greater solutions;
like a good room for example, and good quality recordings of course.
* Great post, as usual Soundminded. :b
Similar threads
