In Reply to: Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. posted by tomservo on November 7, 2006 at 10:49:27:
Hi Tom,I respect your opinion although I am not always agree with it. For example: you stated "There is a danger in using “realistic†to mean “real†or accurate, which is not necessarily the same thing." I believe that something that sounds real to my ears is what realistic sounding or accurate actually is!
If we are going to use machines to determine for us what's accurate or real, instead of our ears, I believe you'd be correct in everything you say. However like I stated in the original post I don't believe that what is presently being measured via the machines used, accurately correlates or represents what the ear/brain combo uses to determine what represents a realistic replication of live music.
Tom I'll admit that sometimes our ears can be fooled. Of that I have no doubt. At the same time I also know that the our ears ALWAYS recognize when they hear live music. I have never, ever mistaken live music for recorded or vise versa, have you? That alone would seem to indicate to me that our ears are actually highly reliable at recognizing what live music sounds like, or don't you agree? Even if I walk by a house with a window open and a live band practicing sight unseen, I know immediately that I am hearing live and not recorded music. I've never, ever seen someone mistake live music for recorded music.
I also know some believe we often pick realism based on expectation. Yet that theory is flawed. I remember back when I didn't believe wires influenced how a system sounds. Thus if someone wanted me to hear how good a set of wires sounded I wouldn't even give them a chance to demonstrate their wires. One day I relented and allowed a dealer to demonstrate some wires for me. So here I am fully biased against hearing any change let alone and improvement. Further I fully expected not to hear any changes. Yet much to my amazement I heard an not only a change, but even more so, I heard a more realistic replication of what I know live music sounds like. So why didn't my expectation bias prevent me from hearing any change or improvement? If one believes in "expectation bias" it has to work both ways, i.e. for and against the belief. Yet clearly in this case it didn't work as described, so I have a difficult time lending much credence to this theory.
As I said in the original post... "Whatever you believe, whatever your POV on this issue is, doesn't really matter to me. I was simply looking for an audio component that would measure poorly, yet while replicating music, would sound more realistic. Apparently I've now found such a component in the Kusunoki-style DACs." I don't want to get into another round of "it sounds more realistic, not it doesn't' it's euphonic colored" or you are fooling yourself, expectation biases, etc.
I'm 100% postive that one day scientists will discover how and what needs to be measured to determine what the human ear/brain combo and NOT a machine is uses to determine what is and isn't live music. I'm equally postive when that day arrives, science will verify that those who use their ears as the final arbitrator have the more "accurate" audio components. You of course are free to believe as you will. These are MY beliefs, I don't require or ask that anyone else agree with them and I don't want to argue over them, not that I think you want to or are doing that.
I fully respect and understand why you believe what you do, I just disagree with your POV. I also wished I lived near Chicago, I'd love to met you. Should you ever be visting Orlando, FL., please send me an email about a week before you come so we can make arrangements for you to come over for a listening session.
As always my best --- Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 13:32:47 11/07/06 (12)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 08:04:44 11/08/06 (11)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 10:08:01 11/08/06 (10)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 12:32:51 11/08/06 (9)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 09:20:27 11/09/06 (2)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 19:36:55 11/09/06 (1)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - thetubeguy1954 10:25:48 11/10/06 (0)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - andy19191 14:54:35 11/08/06 (5)
- Re: Another Sample Of An Audio Component That Doesn't Measure Well, But Sounds Great. - tomservo 16:05:39 11/08/06 (4)
- Indeed - E-Stat 17:31:47 11/08/06 (3)
- Re: Indeed - kerr 06:29:09 11/09/06 (2)
- They were the only guys who cared about THD (nt) - E-Stat 09:21:14 11/09/06 (1)
- How much could they hear - 0.000005%? LMAO! (nt) - kerr 09:37:36 11/09/06 (0)