hi ralph:
aha, now i see your point. you have defined a criterion as to what best is, and you are applying that criterion to the evaluation of components and stereo systems.
i understand your perspective, but it is an arbitrary one. you use the word "best" and "worst", as it follows from your premise of accuracy, and "the rules of hearing".
your premise is arbitrary, although sensible.
i still say that there is no "best" or worst", in the absolute sense. i will accept your conclusions based upon your premise, but at the same time, i reject it because, i consider this hobby to be subjective and the basis for judging stereo systems to be a simple, "i like it" or "i don't like it". "best" or "worst", which follows logically from your premise is irrelevant. don't confuse facts with value. you are making a virtue of necessity.
by the way, i sent you an e mail. did you receive it ?
i see no point in debating with you. this is a philosophical argument. one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies.
as i said in the e mail, it would be easier to discuss this in person with you. perhaps we may meet at ces.
aha, now i see your point. you have defined a criterion as to what best is, and you are applying that criterion to the evaluation of components and stereo systems.
i understand your perspective, but it is an arbitrary one. you use the word "best" and "worst", as it follows from your premise of accuracy, and "the rules of hearing".
your premise is arbitrary, although sensible.
i still say that there is no "best" or worst", in the absolute sense. i will accept your conclusions based upon your premise, but at the same time, i reject it because, i consider this hobby to be subjective and the basis for judging stereo systems to be a simple, "i like it" or "i don't like it". "best" or "worst", which follows logically from your premise is irrelevant. don't confuse facts with value. you are making a virtue of necessity.
by the way, i sent you an e mail. did you receive it ?
i see no point in debating with you. this is a philosophical argument. one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies.
as i said in the e mail, it would be easier to discuss this in person with you. perhaps we may meet at ces.