Principles

Yes it did impact differently on an emotional level. I have an amp of my own that does this, but with a very different topology/components. I just wasn't expecting this particular amp to have the same effect.

I'm trying less and less to listen with a 'hifi' head on and more & more to listen based on the effect it has on me but its a difficult habit to break/skill to acquire yet one that we use without question when hearing live acoustic music.

I don't believe this is the same thing that the 70's 80's flat earth listeners were pursuing, (maybe it is!) and it wasn't euphonic colouration either BBV. I do know what that sounds like.

 

You are just repalcing one measurement metric with another - probably equally flawed, or more so due to its subjectivity.

 

OK so we have to pursue the objectivist line to its ultimate conclusion stuck up the cul-de-sac.

Two amplifiers that measure identically can sound different to each other both in hi-fi terms and in musical terms. And visa versa visa (as we have 3 possibilities - measurement - sound - music).

If we can establish that my presumption is true, then perhaps we can explore the reasons behind this.

Richard

 

Having been one of them I can tell you that it is, so go very carefull as you could become one

Richard

 

No, they can not. You are missing some measurments if that is the case.

 

So there is no such thing as good / bad - hot / cold - sweet / sour - night / day - male / female. Strange world you live in! There would be no language without dichotomy (difference / opposites) as there would be no need to have a word. If there was only hot (no temperature differential) you would have no word cold so therefore there would be no need for the word hot as it would be an omnipresent fact, so unrecognisable.

Richard

 

Audio engineering is a scientific discipline subject to scientific rules. If that is objectivist then so be it. It is the only way to approach the topic. Otherwise it would be like homeopathy . Valve lovers love audio voodoo!

They only sound different but measure the same if the the measurements insufficiently characterise the amps and further objectivist work is required.

Most measurement in audio is reliant upon the reductionist and linear paradigms neither of which is fully sufficient. Nonlinear and interdependent metrics are required. These are ahrd to evolve and hard to understand and dont sell equipment when printed in glossy brochures - unlike sound bite measurements like thd or power. Plus most people in audio engineering arent up to it.

 

richard,
if i understand your question correctly then i'm not sure how it pertains to what i said.

if it clarifies my position here is what i'm trying to get across..

1) i am a subjectivist - i think hi-fi equipement quality is all in the ear of the beholder.

2) if someone else tells me that piece of kit x is the best in the world then my bullsh1t detector redlines.

3) i am the only qualified person able to say what i prefer.

4) you are the only qualified person to say what you prefer.

5) trying to tell someone else what they should prefer is akin to p1ssing up a rope.

6) arguing about it is entertaining but ultimately futile.

if the dichotomy you refer to is between 3 and 4 then yes you are talking sh1t - as am i from your perspective (if what i'm saying is contrary to your own opinions).

ultimately...

7) it's all bo11ocks anyway.

 

Actually hot and cold are signalled by different nerve receptors in the body therefore this provides an objectivist definition. Same for sweet and sour on the tongue. So they can both exist in isolation. What you are referring to is a trick of conciousness - much like subjectivist thinking . Which is why it cant be used to design audio equipment.

 

Everything is possible - but!

OK so you drop out of the conversation at this point as you don't accept the premis required to continue it. All you can do from this point is spoil others exploration of the possible.

Go find another thread to play in!

Richard

 

There is no point continuing with a faulty premise. Everything that follows it is flawed. Discussion of the premises is critical as that the crux of most arguments not the logic that follows.

 

This is ridiculous did you read my post? Where have I said they don't exist. I say they do exist. Dichotomy means difference or opposites and we measure those opposites. That is what *I* said. So what are you talking about. Or are we just going to get things twisted into the normal perverted arguments that happen here. Has everyone noticed it is normally the same people!

Richard

 

So you also wish to stop people exploring and discussing this subject. Please accept some people wish to look at things you do not wish to. What is you right to deny that!

Richard

 

Not at all - I am just saying that if you are going to discuss it then the premis must also be discussed.

You claimed these sensation only exist in relation to each other correct? I am saying it just appears that way, but in fact they have independent existence. Which illustrates why subjectivism is always deceptive.

I am not trying to provoke a "perverted argument" - it is legitimate point of view. I suggest you not let yourself get to heated on what is just a harmless debate.

 

I thought you wanted to establish if that was true. I didn't realise it was a premise for taking part in this conversation.

 

Up to 5 I agree with you.

I do not understand you latter reference as earlier you said you had heard that dichotomy / difference.

The whole reson d'etre of this forum is based on discussing that bo11ocks as you put it. I believe there are ways of quantifying and discussing these differences, but you have to turn the emphasis onto you and not onto the objects providing the stimulation. Both have to be explored, as it is an interface, exactly the same as if there was a cable between you and your hi-fi instead of air.

Richard

 

I dont think this presumption is necessarily true. It needs further discussion.

 

Start your own thread and discuss it then.

Richard

 

Its on this thread and I kept to your intial conditions. You seem to dislike when people question your assumptions - so why start the thread? Two people that disagree with you (amicably) you ask to leave!

 

"Lets start with the premis (dangerous) that hi-fi is for listening to music, and not just feeding your ego or for intellectual rattling and masturbation."

First post in the thread. AND yet again we go this way. As far as I concerned you are out of this conversation. Please note I say "as far as I am concerned" before you twist anything else. I will wait to see if anybody actually wishes to discuss this subject apart from Julien.

Richard