Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break

[Soundminded]

(and some from your earlier post too)

Re the eternal lament 'it does not sound like the real thing'...who cares??

Let's leave aside whether it does or does not, or how close we can realistically approach it.

Does it matter?

Prob worth it's own thread.

I don't get why everyone twists themselves into knots on this issue, surely it is far more important that you derive pleasure and enjoyment from listening to your favorite music?

Is it only audiophiles who wear this hair shirt I wonder. I mean, get on a photography forum, sure (I guess) they'd have their own set of things to argue about, but would one of those things be the constant lament that a photo is not the same as the real scene?? Or a movie buff forum...hey, the movies are not like real life (and thankgod for that, they're usually boring enough as it is!)

Paintings..reckon they duplicate the real thing? Expressionism etc etc. Heck, they even have exhibitions of black and white photography...no-one is trying to say that is as real as the real scene do they?

Why this constant moan about not being real, I don't understand it. We accept the journey, the altered state of mind of tv shows, movies, books and photos, but when it comes to audio...

Even if we could exactly duplicate a real concert, would you want to? Why NOT have a different event, then you can have the real concert for all the benefits that brings, and a substitute yet enjoyable alternative, the recorded session in the home. You don't get the pinpoint imaging at a concert you can achieve at home, so why deny that there can be very real different pleasures from a recording.

Celebrate it, stop whinging is my approach.

Better yet, have very real impact and slam (etc etc) approaching at least what is available from the real concert, without all the kiddies with their stupid damned mobile phones held in front of them, the light from which goes straight back into your eyes. Why they have to experience life via a mobile is beyond me (look, LOOK, your 'hero' is there, in real life, just in front of you. It's called a stage. Why watch him live via a screen? may as well stay at home and watch on tv)

AND, from home with all the (different) realities a recording can give that the live cannot, I can just reach my hand out and grab the next beer, roll a cig and play at the vol I want, with the sound I have set up for my tastes and not be at the mercy of some half deaf engineer with an atrocious PA system.

Man, instead of whining about what it can't do, flip the coin and celebrate what it CAN do that the live cannot. Embrace the different but equally valid artistic event in front of you.

"Does it matter?"

Only if you like music. There's music and then there are recordings which are a facsimile of music. Unfortunately even the best facsimiles are poor ones. They do EVERYTHING wrong. They have the wrong tone, the wrong dynamics, they do not create the sense of space and the power the instruments have to fill it up. They do not create the reverberation which connects and cements the notes together in time that creates continuity to music. Instead they present the listener with a flat dead series of discontinuous notes that sometimes blare at you. They are often shrill. Attempts to correct this only makes them sound muffled. When you listen to a recording of a Beethoven symphony you are not hearing a Beethoven symphony, you are hearing a parody of one. This might not matter if you accept that this is a primitive science and this miserable effort is the best it can come up with but no, these people who make and sell this stuff, some more expensive than a new car, a new house, a new mansion will tell you with a straight face how great it is. I'm here to tell you it stinks. If you want to hear what music sounds like, there's only one way so far and that's to go to a real live concert. Or to learn to play a musical instrument yourself which may be a lot harder than you think. Or you can just buy into this stuff and pretend you are listening to music. Too bad, music is a direct connection between human beings that can be one of life's most enriching experiences. Recordings are what you settle for when you can't have the real thing. There's hardly any delusion worse than self delusion. The best thing to tell manufacturers of high end equipment is to go back to the drawing board and don't come back until you've actually gotten your act together and fixed it, make it work right. Buying their crap only encourages them to make more of it.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Look at a band or orchestra. Look at your speakers. It should require no further explanation, but people will believe what they want. People who believe they bring the concert hall into their listening room? Excellent suspension of disbelief. I'm happy for them.

Tim

Tim,

And you expect that just buying the Orion speakers you will be one of them? Do you agree with next sentence?

On the other hand, if loudspeakers, room and recording are appropriately optimized, then two-channel playback in a normal living space can provide an experience that is fully satisfying. Loudspeakers and room disappear and the illusion of listening into a different space takes over.

 

[microstrip]

A lot of people imagine a lot in their heads when their brains piece together the left and right information, and some have better imaginations than others..and more power to them...but only one person on this forum ever said that they heard a system replicate a live event and that person is the most subjective, and component changing person I know of on this site. That person simply delights in changes in sound and thats no problem and part of the hobby.

Tom,

Can you nominate that honorable member? Perhaps he has something to say about your insidious comment.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

And you expect that just buying the Orion speakers you will be one of them? Do you agree with next sentence?

On the other hand, if loudspeakers, room and recording are appropriately optimized, then two-channel playback in a normal living space can provide an experience that is fully satisfying. Loudspeakers and room disappear and the illusion of listening into a different space takes over.

Glad you threw that wink in there. Of course I don't expect Orions to perform that miracle. I agree with the statement that follows, but it raises another question: If recording, loudspeakers and room are "appropriately optimized" (and I suspect we have very different views of what this means), two-channel playback in a normal living space can be fully satisfying? The loudspeakers and room can seem to disappear? Absolutely. The illusion of listening into another space? To the extent that the loudspeakers and room disappear, yes, I suppose we have the illusion of listening into a different space. What space? is the question. A constructed one that exists nowhere in nature is the answer. It can be very good, very satisfying, but it is still a false construct. You cannot, playing any speakers into any space, recreate the sound of the real instruments. Not in the space they were recorded in; not in the space you're playing them in. We aren't there yet. We really aren't even close.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Glad you threw that wink in there. Of course I don't expect Orions to perform that miracle. I agree with the statement that follows, but it raises another question: If recording, loudspeakers and room are "appropriately optimized" (and I suspect we have very different views of what this means), two-channel playback in a normal living space can be fully satisfying? The loudspeakers and room can seem to disappear? Absolutely. The illusion of listening into another space? To the extent that the loudspeakers and room disappear, yes, I suppose we have the illusion of listening into a different space. What space? is the question. A constructed one that exists nowhere in nature is the answer. It can be very good, very satisfying, but it is still a false construct. You cannot, playing any speakers into any space, recreate the sound of the real instruments. Not in the space they were recorded in; not in the space you're playing them in. We aren't there yet. We really aren't even close.

Tim

Tim,

But who cares it is a false construct, as long as it keeps most of the more important aspects to recreate the illusion? We are now debating the notion of recreating. You say we are very far, I say in some types of music we can be very close, including many spacial properties. Bottle half full or half empty, who is correct?

You are ignoring all the perceptual aspects of sound reproduction and want to reduce it to a mechanical (vibrational) comparison. IMHO, it is not acceptable.

BTW, the quote was from a S. Linkwitz presentation, as you should have guessed.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

But who cares it is a false construct, as long as it keeps most of the more important aspects to recreate the illusion? We are now debating the notion of recreating. You say we are very far, I say in some types of music we can be very close, including many spacial properties. Bottle half full or half empty, who is correct?

You are ignoring all the perceptual aspects of sound reproduction and want to reduce it to a mechanical (vibrational) comparison. IMHO, it is not acceptable.

BTW, the quote was from a S. Linkwitz presentation, as you should have guessed.

But who cares it is a false construct

I certainly don't. I just care that I enjoy it.

You say we are very far, I say in some types of music we can be very close, including many spacial properties. Bottle half full or half empty, who is correct?

The bottle is neither empty nor full. It is a singular bottle, of a singular shape, trying to emulate dozens of different bottles, plus jars, cans, plates, bowls, glasses... That it does as well as it does is nothing short of miraculous. And of course I am correct.

You are ignoring all the perceptual aspects of sound reproduction and want to reduce it to a mechanical (vibrational) comparison.

Not at all. The perceptual aspects are what makes it possible, on some types of music, to appear as if we are pretty close.

Tim

PS: I recognized the Linkwitz quote; I've read it before.

 

[Gregadd]

Subjectivist v Objectivist Debate:
"http://friends.tktv.net/Episodes2/summaries/3.html

[...]

PHOEBE: I’m sorry, but sometimes they need help. That’s fine. Go ahead and scoff. You know, there’re a lot of things that I don’t believe in, but that doesn’t mean they’re not true.

JOEY: Such as?

PHOEBE: Like crop circles, or the Bermuda triangle, or evolution?

ROSS: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, you don’t, uh, you don’t believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Nah. Not really.

ROSS: You don’t believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: I don’t know, it’s just, you know...monkeys, Darwin, you know, it’s a, it’s a nice story, I just think it’s a little too easy.

ROSS: Too easy? Too...The process of every living thing on this planet evolving over millions of years from single-celled organisms, too easy?

PHOEBE: Yeah, I just don’t buy it.

ROSS: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.

PHOEBE: Ok, don’t get me started on gravity.

ROSS: You uh, you don’t believe in gravity?

PHOEBE: Well, it’s not so much that you know, like I don’t believe in it, you know, it’s just...I don’t know, lately I get the feeling that I’m not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed.

(knock)

CHANDLER: Uh-Oh. It’s Isaac Newton, and he’s pissed.

[...]

ROSS: How can you not believe in evolution?

PHOEBE: Just don’t. Look at this funky shirt!

ROSS: Pheebs, I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Ok, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, ok? You can literally see them evolving through time.

PHOEBE: Really? You can actually see it?

ROSS: You bet. In the U.S., China, Africa, all over.

PHOEBE: See, I didn’t know that.

ROSS: Well, there you go.

PHOEBE: Huh. So now, the real question is, who put those fossils there, and why?

[...]

ROSS: Ok, Pheebs. See how I’m making these little toys move? Opposable thumbs. Without evolution, how do you explain opposable thumbs?

PHOEBE: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts.

ROSS: Please tell me you’re joking.

PHOEBE: Look, can’t we just say that you believe in something, and I don’t.

ROSS: No, no, Pheebs, we can’t, ok, because—

PHOEBE: What is this obsessive need you have to make everyone agree with you? No, what’s that all about? I think, I think maybe it’s time you put Ross under the microscope.

ROSS: Is there blood coming out of my ears?

[...]

PHOEBE: Uh-oh. It’s Scary Scientist Man.

ROSS: Ok, Phoebe, this is it. In this briefcase I carry actual scientific facts. A briefcase of facts, if you will. Some of these fossils are over 200 million years old.

PHOEBE: Ok, look, before you even start, I’m not denying evolution, ok, I’m just saying that it’s one of the possibilities.

ROSS: It’s the only possibility, Phoebe.

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn’t there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can’t admit that there’s a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

ROSS: There might be, a teeny, tiny, possibility.

PHOEBE: I can’t believe you caved.

ROSS: What?

PHOEBE: You just abandoned your whole belief system. I mean, before, I didn’t agree with you, but at least I respected you. How, how, how are you going to go into work tomorrow? How, how are you going to face the other science guys? How, how are you going to face yourself? Oh! That was fun. So who’s hungry?"

 

[microstrip]

(...) The bottle is neither empty nor full. It is a singular bottle, of a singular shape, trying to emulate dozens of different bottles, plus jars, cans, plates, bowls, glasses... That it does as well as it does is nothing short of miraculous. And of course I am correct.

Not at all. The perceptual aspects are what makes it possible, on some types of music, to appear as if we are pretty close.

Tim

PS: I recognized the Linkwitz quote; I've read it before.

Tim,

It is not miraculous at all - it is just due to the basics of sound reproduction, perceptual aspects including plenty of listener experience included.

Since you know well the Linkwitz work, do you agree on his views of the tree and the forest?

 

[Gregadd]

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

It is not miraculous at all - it is just due to the basics of sound reproduction, perceptual aspects including plenty of listener experience included.

Since you know well the Linkwitz work, do you agree on his views of the tree and the forest?

I wouldn't say I know Linkwitz written work well, I'd say I got lucky the last time. What about the tree and forest?

Tim

 

[Atmasphere]

You cannot, playing any speakers into any space, recreate the sound of the real instruments. Not in the space they were recorded in; not in the space you're playing them in. We aren't there yet. We really aren't even close.

Tim

Actually we are a lot closer than you think. The problem is not the speakers or electronics, its the media. I can't tell you how many times I have been fooled by live microphone feeds- they can sound so realistic that you inherently act as if the person/performer is in the room even if intellectually you know better. This is especially true of headphones (although you specifically mentioned speakers.... and I don't intend to commit a logical fallacy here). If we could get the playback media to be as transparent as the mic feed we would be on to something. So far I have yet to see it- the closest I have heard are direct lathe cuts (not LPs and certainly nothing digital).

I am not saying that we can produce the sound of the space, but there may be a problem with the model. If you think a stereo is going to reproduce the ambient sound of the environment, that will lead to disappointment. However if you use the stereo as a time/space machine that allows you to graft your listening room onto a front and center experience, a stereo can do that quite well. IOW imagine your room transported in time and space to a musical event, and the walls of the room are indeed blocking the ambient information from the sides and rear. Given that limitation stereos do very well and that is the only realistic model I have found that works.

There is an additional problem. This has to do with how the amp and the speaker interact. Its not talked about much due to the fact that it is very inconvenient to the industry, but there are several different models for how an amplifier drives a speaker. Two models have become paradigms and are responsible for a lot of the debate in the objectivist/subjectivist debate. Here's a link to an article on this subject:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php

In a nutshell these paradigms have been in conflict in audio over the last 45-50 years. Also covered in this article is that the human ear uses odd-ordered harmonics (present in all sounds) to determine how loud those sound are. If the electronics mess with those harmonics (odd-ordered harmonic distortion) we will perceive the sound as louder and brighter than it really is. If too many human hearing/perceptual rules like this one (and this one is arguably the most important) are violated, the brain will move the processing of the music from the limbic centers to the cerebral cortex.

If you have ever wondered why some systems are toe-tapping and others not, this is one reason why. The odd-ordered harmonic distortion is also why some amps can sound bright and harsh but measure flat on the bench. The ear hears harmonic distortion as tonality, and there is a tipping point where it will favor it over actual frequency response. In the case of odd-ordered harmonics, this tipping point is when the odd orders might be altered by only a few 100ths of a percent. We can hear that easily and audiophiles have a lot of terms describing that: bright harsh clinical, etc.

If we are a long ways from getting audio to sound real, it is only because the audio industry refuses to address these issues. For the most part you can just follow the dollars and see why it does not.

 

[Gregadd]

I am not saying that we can produce the sound of the space, but there may be a problem with the model. If you think a stereo is going to reproduce the ambient sound of the environment, that will lead to disappointment. However if you use the stereo as a time/space machine that allows you to graft your listening room onto a front and center experience, a stereo can do that quite well. IOW imagine your room transported in time and space to a musical event, and the walls of the room are indeed blocking the ambient information from the sides and rear. Given that limitation stereos do very well and that is the only realistic model I have found that works.

I don't think I have ever tried to "imagine my room trsnported in time and spapce to a musical event." I think, speaking for myself, the goal is to look for sufficient external clues to try and reconstruct the musical event. In laymens' terms llet's consider the Wheel of Fortune game show/ The object is to"guess the word or phrase with fas ew letters as possible. I want the illusion to work.Iit takes differnt letters and different combinations of vowels and consonants to fill in the blanks. The more letters you have the easier it is to guess the word or phrase.
reconstruction can be accomplished without alll the clues regarding the original recording space/ The mind can fill in some of the blanks.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Actually we are a lot closer than you think. The problem is not the speakers or electronics, its the media. I can't tell you how many times I have been fooled by live microphone feeds- they can sound so realistic that you inherently act as if the person/performer is in the room even if intellectually you know better. This is especially true of headphones (although you specifically mentioned speakers.... and I don't intend to commit a logical fallacy here). If we could get the playback media to be as transparent as the mic feed we would be on to something. So far I have yet to see it- the closest I have heard are direct lathe cuts (not LPs and certainly nothing digital).

I am not saying that we can produce the sound of the space, but there may be a problem with the model. If you think a stereo is going to reproduce the ambient sound of the environment, that will lead to disappointment. However if you use the stereo as a time/space machine that allows you to graft your listening room onto a front and center experience, a stereo can do that quite well. IOW imagine your room transported in time and space to a musical event, and the walls of the room are indeed blocking the ambient information from the sides and rear. Given that limitation stereos do very well and that is the only realistic model I have found that works.

There is an additional problem. This has to do with how the amp and the speaker interact. Its not talked about much due to the fact that it is very inconvenient to the industry, but there are several different models for how an amplifier drives a speaker. Two models have become paradigms and are responsible for a lot of the debate in the objectivist/subjectivist debate. Here's a link to an article on this subject:
http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php

In a nutshell these paradigms have been in conflict in audio over the last 45-50 years. Also covered in this article is that the human ear uses odd-ordered harmonics (present in all sounds) to determine how loud those sound are. If the electronics mess with those harmonics (odd-ordered harmonic distortion) we will perceive the sound as louder and brighter than it really is. If too many human hearing/perceptual rules like this one (and this one is arguably the most important) are violated, the brain will move the processing of the music from the limbic centers to the cerebral cortex.

If you have ever wondered why some systems are toe-tapping and others not, this is one reason why. The odd-ordered harmonic distortion is also why some amps can sound bright and harsh but measure flat on the bench. The ear hears harmonic distortion as tonality, and there is a tipping point where it will favor it over actual frequency response. In the case of odd-ordered harmonics, this tipping point is when the odd orders might be altered by only a few 100ths of a percent. We can hear that easily and audiophiles have a lot of terms describing that: bright harsh clinical, etc.

If we are a long ways from getting audio to sound real, it is only because the audio industry refuses to address these issues. For the most part you can just follow the dollars and see why it does not.

Thanks for the link. An interesting perspective and well-written enough that I nearly understood it. I don't think the shorfall in realism I'm talking about is going to be addressed by any amplifier paradigm, though. It is much broader and more systemic than that. There isn't a speaker made that can realistically project itself into a room like a human voice, a grand piano, a trumpet and a drum kit all at once, regardless of what kind of amplification you're driving them with. All of those instruments disperse (and do many other things) very differently. To reproduce them in-room with accuracy would require separate recording and amplification channels for each instrument driving separate and very different driver types designed to emulate instrument types -- horns for horns, planars for speakers, etc. It would require a mix designed to create balance among those different driver types (and, therefore, very consistent, standardized playback systems) and maybe even the ability of the system to move the drivers into the appropriate position for each recording! I've heard a lot of good systems. I've heard a few that could cause you to double-take on a voice, a sound, a singular instrument. I've heard a few that could create a pretty awesome illusion with very simple recordings. Get complex and it begins to flatten out. And not very complex at that. A drum kit, which could easily require a dozen drivers of 3 different types all by itself, is all that it takes. I don't care what kind of amplifier paradigm you use, the system that will make it sound like there is a drum kit in the room with you does not exist. To my knowledge, the basic format (mono, stereo, 3-channel, surround, binaural) to pull that off has not been invented.

There are some wonderful illusions out there. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy. And avoid walking into a room the size of your listening room, with a real drum kit.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I wouldn't say I know Linkwitz written work well, I'd say I got lucky the last time. What about the tree and forest?

Tim

Tim,

It is all in the Linwitz site. You just have to google the word forest in his site. I just did it for you:

QUESTION:
If a tree falls in a dark forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any sound?

ANSWER:
No!

The falling tree sets huge numbers of air particles into oscillatory motion. They push on other air particles and cause a chain reaction that propagates away from the tree at the speed of sound. In this process mechanical energy is transformed into heat as the wave hits other objects, is reflected, diffused and absorbed.
If a person is in range of the air particle disturbance, then a few particles hit the left and right ear drum. This is registered in the brain and perceived as sound.
For evolutionary reasons it is important to recognize the nature of a sound source. The detailed shape of the external ear, i.e. the pinna and the ear canal, changes the strength of the sound wave at the ear drum depending upon the frequency of oscillation and the direction from which the air particles arrive. This is further enhanced by the sound shadowing of the head between the ears. The separation of the two ears causes a delay between the particles arriving at each ear drum when the source is not located in the median plane, the vertical plane that bisects the body. Thus, turning the head sideways or up and down changes the air particle strength at the ear drums.
The brain has evolved to process spectral, temporal and directional cues to form a mental picture of the origin of a sound, its direction, distance, size and nature. This is further enhanced by visual and tactile cues, and certainly by learning and memory.

 

[rbbert]

Of course, if you read the explanation, the answer is clearly "yes", so I'm a little baffled by the whole exercise?

 

[rbbert]

Subjectivist v Objectivist Debate:
"http://friends.tktv.net/Episodes2/summaries/3.html

...

PHOEBE: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn’t there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of crap came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can’t admit that there’s a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

...

I hope no one is using this type of reasoning to support his position, because as any historian (scientific or other) knows both of her assertions are totally false

 

[FrantzM]

Of course, if you read the explanation, the answer is clearly "yes", so I'm a little baffled by the whole exercise?

You're not alone .. This is a weak argument .. If we are to follow that logic ..Nothing one witnesses in person ever occurred ... that includes WWII .. Oh Well anything to "win" a debate I'd guess ...

 

[microstrip]

You're not alone .. This is a weak argument .. If we are to follow that logic ..Nothing one witnesses in person ever occurred ... that includes WWII .. Oh Well anything to "win" a debate I'd guess ...

Frantz,

Sorry, but wrong guess again. The question is crucial in any debate in audio, as it is not a philosophical issue, but fundamental to situate a perspective about sound reproduction. It is why known audio scientists such as Toole and Linkwitz have lost their time writing long and thoughtful lines about it. Surely it deserves a little more reflection than a few seconds in an audio forum and you have to read it in the original context to debate it.

 

[terryj]

"Does it matter?"

Only if you like music. There's music and then there are recordings which are a facsimile of music. Unfortunately even the best facsimiles are poor ones. They do EVERYTHING wrong. They have the wrong tone, the wrong dynamics, they do not create the sense of space and the power the instruments have to fill it up. They do not create the reverberation which connects and cements the notes together in time that creates continuity to music. Instead they present the listener with a flat dead series of discontinuous notes that sometimes blare at you. They are often shrill. Attempts to correct this only makes them sound muffled. When you listen to a recording of a Beethoven symphony you are not hearing a Beethoven symphony, you are hearing a parody of one. This might not matter if you accept that this is a primitive science and this miserable effort is the best it can come up with but no, these people who make and sell this stuff, some more expensive than a new car, a new house, a new mansion will tell you with a straight face how great it is. I'm here to tell you it stinks. If you want to hear what music sounds like, there's only one way so far and that's to go to a real live concert. Or to learn to play a musical instrument yourself which may be a lot harder than you think. Or you can just buy into this stuff and pretend you are listening to music. Too bad, music is a direct connection between human beings that can be one of life's most enriching experiences. Recordings are what you settle for when you can't have the real thing. There's hardly any delusion worse than self delusion. The best thing to tell manufacturers of high end equipment is to go back to the drawing board and don't come back until you've actually gotten your act together and fixed it, make it work right. Buying their crap only encourages them to make more of it.

given that it seems a dead topic nonetheless you responded (thanks) so we may as well have a private conversation

having said that, I'm not sure where exactly you are coming from, other than a complete utter disdain and disgust for the entire area...one wonders if it is so abhorrent to you why you would even be in the hobby? It flipflops from the source (recording) being so dismal that even the best are poor to the trouble being the manufacturers with such atrocious products we need to get a message to them..'you cannot do a single thing right so go back to the drawing boards'.

Well yeah, given that mental background I can see you would never be happy with stereo. My advice is to save your money on both the recordings and the system, and exclusively just attend concerts.

Me? I'll happily just enjoy the event that stereo can give me, enjoy that for what it is (a completely valid alternative musical experience...different but as valid as any other) and not get into the self flagellation gig.

 

[rbbert]

Frantz,

Sorry, but wrong guess again. The question is crucial in any debate in audio, as it is not a philosophical issue, but fundamental to situate a perspective about sound reproduction. It is why known audio scientists such as Toole and Linkwitz have lost their time writing long and thoughtful lines about it. Surely it deserves a little more reflection than a few seconds in an audio forum and you have to read it in the original context to debate it.

And yet you quoted it out of context and expect us to understand? I'm still confused.