What's wrong with Redbook, really?

[Phelonious Ponk]

IMO although the rapid switching approach will expose sound differences, that approach is not likely to tell one very much about timbre, presence, dynamic contrasts, spatial definition, and coherence. In my experience only careful listening and attention to detail yields really great sounding audio systems.

Agreed.

Tim

[fas42]

So where is the "dispute"? ...

Frank

[Phelonious Ponk]

So where is the "dispute"? ...

Frank

The dispute is right here, Frank:

Rapid switching is never going to tell anything worthwhile with audio, unless there are extreme differences ...

It is exactly the opposite of the established science which says rapid switching's forte is the detection of very subtle differences. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Maybe you meant to say something much more nuanced, like Len said. But you didn't.

Tim

[Ron Party]

Hopefully you can read that which we've taken great pains to make clear. If the detection of real vs. imaged differences is not something worthwhile in audio, well, then your statement is true.

And Micro, you continue to cite but misunderstand Toole, one of the most staunchest advocates of the scientific method. Do you honestly believe that passage means that Toole ascribes sentient ability to an inanimate object? What's next? Cars? Toaster ovens?

[fas42]

It is exactly the opposite of the established science which says rapid switching's forte is the detection of very subtle differences. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Maybe you meant to say something much more nuanced, like Len said. But you didn't.

Tim

Well, I did mean something more nuanced. That's why I included the phrase "anything worthwhile", because it's those "nuanced" elements that make the journey into high end realisation of sound meaningful, worthwhile. In the context of this forum, it seemed to be a reasonable way of putting things. I guess I was wrong ...

Frank

[Phelonious Ponk]

Frank, to someone of your remarkable perceptual talents, the ability to identify what's actually audible before skipping down the path of your imagination would be the most worthwhile thing you could do. A month of your...ahem, activities...verified through blind rapid switching, might give you the power to put away Tinkerbell's soldering iron and dedicate your days to actually listening to music.

Besides, the inclusion of "anything worthwhile," regardless of what nuance you would ascribe to it retrospectively, doesn't change the fact that you said rapid switching would only be useful in identifying extreme differences, when exactly the opposite is the truth.

Tim

[microstrip]

H(...) And Micro, you continue to cite but misunderstand Toole, one of the most staunchest advocates of the scientific method. Do you honestly believe that passage means that Toole ascribes sentient ability to an inanimate object? What's next? Cars? Toaster ovens?

Just to make it clear - you are trying to misrepresent, as most of the time, my position. Even when I enter only a quote just to define an alternative "sound reproduction" definition without any comment you can not resist to distort your opponent view. I have read the full book and know what Toole wisely thinks about the problems and even limitations of applying the scientific method to sound reproduction. Unhappily you seem to think that WBF is a Boston Legal scene. For me it is friendly forum, not a court. Sorry, but I am out of any debate in this style. As I said I am out of thread.

[Ron Party]

I'm sorry, but the distortion is your interpretation of the passage in Toole's book, not the first time you have done so in your tenure here. It was you, yesterday, who stated and I quote:

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity.

If your idea of a friendly forum is one where I must accept your (and not Toole's nor my) definition of inanimate objects involved in sound reproduction as sentient, then color me unfriendly. I'm also sorry that you continue to exhibit such thin skin. We're discussing an issue relating to this hobby, not whether either one of us is, e.g., a mass murderer.

As an aside, my status here as a moderator is irrelevant to this discussion. I could be a mortician, school teacher, or car mechanic. Absolutely irrelevant. That you continue to raise my job title, not only in this thread but others, well, now that is personal. My response is, amongst many, that I occasionally share my opinions and raise allegations of fact just like anyone else, and sometimes I have different opinions or contend one's allegations of fact are untrue in part or in whole. Doesn't seem so unreasonable in an on-line forum, does it, unless you believe I must always agree with you (or others)? I might be correct; I might be incorrect.

[Soundproof]

Hmmm ... Sentient HiFi™ - components ahead of their signal. Look for it at the next CES.

What surprises me, again and again, is how little audiophilia seems to be aware of the immense research going into the emotional portion of musical perception, particularly now that we can actually watch the brain as it's processing away, responding to varied stimuli.
For instance, we know that brand-comfort is very important in order to get synergistic triggering of brain centra. Advertisers and marketers are rejoicing over these findings, and are funding research into the field. It turns out that our ability to enjoy, to be emotionally engaged, is extremely dependent upon our foreknowledge of the stimuli we are to receive.
Consider the recent "findings" by an engaged researcher that trained violinists can't tell a Strad or Guarneri from a modern fiddle, when asked to do so. And that they actually seemed to prefer the recently built violins to the renowned treasures. The story punches through the media balloon around the world, and people go: "Hah! They couldn't tell them apart!"
Reactions vary from guffaws to incredulity, missing the point:

The very fact that I know I will be going to the Kennedy Center in D.C., and there get to listen to Viktoria Mullova playing the Jules Falk Stradivarius, primes my mind for maximum enjoyment of the event (on two counts, really, I like Mullova too). As I sit down, my hormone cocktail having primed me for maximum event reception, my blood bubbles with joy as my brain centres fire away, at the sheer joy of achieving this, a two-fer, maybe even a three-fer if the conductor and orchestra do their bit well. A four-fer, as I have scored the tickets and get to experience this.

And it all becomes a nice witches' brew of synapses firing happily away, giving me a memory to treasure for life. What an enchanted evening!!!

Very much the same mechanism at work with hifi, and also the reason why people get so very, very incensed when someone is trying to kick the underpinnings out from under their particular fascination. The only fallacy being that a hardcore lobby seems to want everyone else to appreciate their particular path to sensory enjoyment, at the expense of everyone elses'.

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hmmm ... Sentient HiFi™ - components ahead of their signal. Look for it at the next CES.

What surprises me, again and again, is how little audiophilia seems to be aware of the immense research going into the emotional portion of musical perception, particularly now that we can actually watch the brain as it's processing away, responding to varied stimuli.
For instance, we know that brand-comfort is very important in order to get synergistic triggering of brain centra. Advertisers and marketers are rejoicing over these findings, and are funding research into the field. It turns out that our ability to enjoy, to be emotionally engaged, is extremely dependent upon our foreknowledge of the stimuli we are to receive.
Consider the recent "findings" by an engaged researcher that trained violinists can't tell a Strad or Guarneri from a modern fiddle, when asked to do so. And that they actually seemed to prefer the recently built violins to the renowned treasures. The story punches through the media balloon around the world, and people go: "Hah! They couldn't tell them apart!"
Reactions vary from guffaws to incredulity, missing the point:

The very fact that I know I will be going to the Kennedy Center in D.C., and there get to listen to Viktoria Mullova playing the Jules Falk Stradivarius, primes my mind for maximum enjoyment of the event (on two counts, really, I like Mullova too). As I sit down, my hormone cocktail having primed me for maximum event reception, my blood bubbles with joy as my brain centres fire away, at the sheer joy of achieving this, a two-fer, maybe even a three-fer if the conductor and orchestra do their bit well. A four-fer, as I have scored the tickets and get to experience this.

And it all becomes a nice witches' brew of synapses firing happily away, giving me a memory to treasure for life. What an enchanted evening!!!

Very much the same mechanism at work with hifi, and also the reason why people get so very, very incensed when someone is trying to kick the underpinnings out from under their particular fascination. The only fallacy being that a hardcore lobby seems to want everyone else to appreciate their particular path to sensory enjoyment, at the expense of everyone elses'.

How one primed their blood to be enchanted by the Strad or the Goldmund, and how much more they enjoy the experience as a result doesn't concern me. But when, upon removal of the breathless, well-primed expectation, the Strad or the Goldmund is indistinguishable from options accessible to millions more music lovers, while an entire hobby and industry insists that it can't be so....well, that bothers me. Call it an over-zealous sense of democracy. I just think of it as my way of putting the music first. If more people think that a first-rate listening experience is accessible to them (and it is), perhaps more of them will pass by the iPod dock for something a bit more substantial, perhaps serious listening will grow as a hobby, perhaps good recordings will become a market worth persuing. Perhaps we'll benefit. I think audiophiledom's oppressive, insecure elitism is a shot in its own foot.

Tim