We need it all, Eric, to be alive and be mutable. To have a future that is not a dead thing where it is all the same.
Too much of any (thing) is deadly. Standardization saves, standardization kills.
the core problem for audio is that the ear is a similar in all..but essentially a blank self built thing in the individual.
that is is possible to agree on sounds heard. But impossible to have each ear be the same as they are not the same. That hearing is a self assembled self built thing. No two are the same and no two brains analyzing the signals are wired the same.
Importantly, that engineering cannot fully apply as engineering is incomplete. It is specifically VERY incomplete in the analysis of the stuff that is important to the hearing done by the ear.
The trick is to get audiophiles and the engineering analysis of such... to understand this all important simple set of data points.
I wish to avoid charlatans as well, as they pollute the pond.
In my experience there are almost no charlatans in audio.
But there is a huge level of misunderstanding of the complexities of audio and then the misapplication of dogma to this proffered complexity--as a method of sorting it out. It's the simpleton's way out.
Thinking and sussing out out is considerably more complex. But is the only truly functional way forward. Most won't commit to it... and offer up emotional responses instead, that are cloaked as being logic and reason, when in fact they are not.
The vast number of audio threads play out in this exact way.
Too much of any (thing) is deadly. Standardization saves, standardization kills.
the core problem for audio is that the ear is a similar in all..but essentially a blank self built thing in the individual.
that is is possible to agree on sounds heard. But impossible to have each ear be the same as they are not the same. That hearing is a self assembled self built thing. No two are the same and no two brains analyzing the signals are wired the same.
Importantly, that engineering cannot fully apply as engineering is incomplete. It is specifically VERY incomplete in the analysis of the stuff that is important to the hearing done by the ear.
The trick is to get audiophiles and the engineering analysis of such... to understand this all important simple set of data points.
I wish to avoid charlatans as well, as they pollute the pond.
In my experience there are almost no charlatans in audio.
But there is a huge level of misunderstanding of the complexities of audio and then the misapplication of dogma to this proffered complexity--as a method of sorting it out. It's the simpleton's way out.
Thinking and sussing out out is considerably more complex. But is the only truly functional way forward. Most won't commit to it... and offer up emotional responses instead, that are cloaked as being logic and reason, when in fact they are not.
The vast number of audio threads play out in this exact way.