sciencecop,
Best not to characterize a previous conversation that anyone here can look up. Remember, anyone can click that link and see how that conversation went ;-)
It’s funny you came in to the thread claiming I "keep feeding the forum misleading information" when, in that last thread, I was the one arguing against someone making a clearly misleading claim that the Harbeth SuperHL5 Plus are "low resolution" and only giving 50% resolution.And YOU were the one entering to SUPPORT that guy’s ludicrous claim. (And clearly failing to do so, given the evidence presented against it). And of course you could not point to one iota of actual misinformation in what I’d written.
or twist my words - did I say that JA sounds "awful"?
Uh...you wrote:
but I can definitely tell that a gross breakup at 5K will SOUND AWFUL. Of course I heard JA speakers, and sure enough, it is EXTREMELY AUDIBLE.
(my emphasis)
So... you heard in the JA speakers a break up that SOUNDED AWFUL, was "extremely audible," but it’s unreasonable that I infered that you found the JA sound "awful?"
Should I have inferred from the fact that upon hearing a speaker with an EXTREMELY AUDIBLE artifact that SOUNDED AWFUL...that you actually thought they sounded good, not awful?
I’ll let others decide if I have been "twisting" your words.
As for "misinformation," I had simply been describing my subjective impression of the JA sound - of being clean and clear - and noting that the speakers produce that subjective impression among a great many listeners, including experienced listeners.
YOU are the one who came in and implied that "nasty break up" discredits the subjective evaluations. And yet, virtually all the subjective evaluations one can find...including people adding more comments here...point to the opposite conclusion: that the measured artifact you point do DOES NOT produce a grainy sound, and in fact the speakers sound subjectively clean and clear to most listeners.
If you have a hypothesis that "X" artifact sound grainy or obviously awful....and there is plenty of subjective evaluations pointing to the opposite conclusion, then you need to (if you are at all fair-minded or rational), dial back your claim to fit reality. If that artifact DOES NOT produce the impression of grain or sound "awful" to most listeners, your emphasis of that artifact is OVERBLOWN in terms of it’s audibility to most people.
MOST listeners (if not all I’ve ever seen but you), find the JA sound clean and clear, and THAT tells us more about the audible significance of your claim, as it relates to most listeners, than you are willing to admit.
And I'm sorry, but not knowing anything at all about your experience, I'll take people like JA's information over yours in terms of correlating objective measurements with his subjective reports. (And, no, lame conspiracy-think won't due to simply dismiss JA as credible; he very often DOES correlate objective artifacts in explaining what he heard in a speaker, as he does in the Perspectives review, both good and bad).
This is not your high-school debate team.
I will just caution people to take your advice with a grain of salt. They are mainly a fiction of your imagination.
Those hollow jabs couldn’t stick the first few times you tried it. I suggest you try induction: learn from experience. ;-)
