What is wrong with Audiophiles?
atdavid I have added many things to this forum, but you seem to gravitate towards tweaks, not things that are likely to make a significant difference in your sound, like truly addressing the acoustics in your environment. >>>>>That’s beautiful! The perfect Strawman argument. Kudos! |
I am also not 12 years old, so I don’t play this "mine is bigger than yours" game. Grow up. How about writing posts here that show that you have any useful knowledge that makes your posts at all relevant, instead of just using ad-hominems to attack others.I was simply asking you a question. And I have yet to hear an answer. What exactly are you teaching me? And when / how did I ever launch any ad-hominems attack to you? Perhaps you should look at the mirror: I will continually make fun of the shoe-box you have for a dedicated listening room So again, I’ll say: show me your room? Mine is posted here, for all to see, good or bad. How about you? |
atdavid ... you seem to gravitate towards tweaks, not things that are likely to make a significant difference in your sound, like truly addressing the acoustics in your environment.Whether the change to the sound of a system is "significant" or not is purely subjective, so it isn't clear what your point is here. As to tweaks, they are not mutually exclusive; you can make acoustic improvements as you also make tweaks. ... Almost every post here "recommending" something becomes 50/50 for and against, so adding one more "I heard this thing, in a room I am not familiar with, with equipment I am not familiar with, and I liked/disliked it" is not going to add any value here.Sez you. But this group does not exist solely for your amusement and satisfaction. Some of us enjoy reading about others' listening experiences, even in the absence of definitive conclusions, and even in the absence of the scientific listening tests you keep asking others to conduct for you. |
Uh, oh, the Cargo Cult is growing. Speaking of bleating you’ve been following the wrong sheep 🐑 🐑 🐑 🐑🚶🏻♂️The hat’s real cool looking. 🙄 Almost every time I see a ’Garmin’ GPS unit, I adopt the pose and walk the walk and say the line, in the correct tone and voice, of course: "Fred Garvin...Male..." Kinda the same as a ’punch buggies - no paybacks’, thing, but totally different.... (the original post addressed his avatar which is of Dan Akyrod when he was on SNL. Oddly enough, I'm in the same town as Dan. Oh, the stories we townies can tell....) |
atdavid Both are correct, but one needs to address the point that the ear only hears the peak and micro transients in the positive side of the waveform and then aggregates them together, in a very time and timing sensitive manner..and this is where the musics lives and is heard by the ear. So tweaks address this area as just as well (qualitatively) as equipment or rooms or acoustics address this area. If we apply engineering weighting to the signal analysis, we find that the changes from tweaks might be 0.1-0.05% of the signal, maybe more, maybe less. But the engineering weighting has that all backward as compared to how the ear analyses the signal. That extra bit is heard on the top ...as the sum is heard -- not the change/difference that is separated out via engineering analysis. Where engineering analysis makes the judgement numerically as a comparative value. And makes the mistake in the thought that the tiny number is swamped by the big number. This method and way is absurd as it has nothing to do with how the ear works or how the ear hears. The measurement is correct. The concocted and assumed meaning of it is not correct. IF we applied the analysis to just the peak positives of the waveform, as a set ...and ignored the other 90% of the signal, just like the ear does..... then the changes might easily equal double digits of change. |
