adamdea;684613 Wrote: > I wrote a fairly long response to this but for some reason the browser > crashed as i pressed "submit". > > I'm sure that your "let's all be nice" point was well intentioned, but > the example you used was very badly chosen. > > In the post which you quoted I was making the specifc point that it > makes more sense to concentrate on areas which can objectively be shown > to make an imporvment in fidelity as opposed to getting a "better" > ethernet cable. It is common knowledge and has been for decades that > the human hearign range goes down to 20Hz. > > I have no ideas why you think that in 1981 or so people did not know > that, or did not realise that (for example) an large organ can make a > note just over 20Hz. I have no idea why anyone would have thought that > extending the bandwidth to 20Hz was a waste of time. This rather > removes the force of your point: what i was suggestign was a change > which any audio engineer in recent history would have seen would have > at least potentially produced an audiable benefit > > I can't help thinking that you have confused sub-wooffers which extend > frequency range to that of human hearign with super tweeters which > extend it beyond human hearing. Had i extolled the virtues of the > latter I would have expected eye brows to be rasied. Had I done so, you > would have had a point. > > Now it is true that I gave examples of what i think the subjective > effects were of this objectively verifiable change; but so what? Of > course the point this that we listen to hifi in order to hear things. > There would be no point making the change if it had no subjective > effect. > > But that is not that same as saying that you have to make a change just > becasue I say there's a subjective effect; it is not the same as > thinking that we must take seriously whatever subjective effects > someone reports, irrespective of whether they are unsupported by > objective data or even contradict any technical understanding of the > system. > > It seems to me that whether you point was addressed to me as an > individual or not, the example you chose did not really support it. > Perhaps if it did leap out at you, it still missed.
I hate it when that happens---you write something brilliant that, in an instant, evaporates! Yes, we can measure that a sub can extend the audible bass response down to 20 hz and we can measure, that in a perfect world, human hearing can hear down to that frequency. That's probably been around for many decades, indeed, and your point is taken. And I certainly and wholeheartedly agree that just because someone says I HAVE to make a change for some reason doesn't mean anything whatsoever--either way---regarding the validity or effect of that change. My point was that before subs came into existence, if you'd kludged one together and, on some yesteryear forum equivalent, said that you'd invented a "bass enhancement device" that had the effect of changing the ambience and making cellos sound better, a lot of people might have dismissed you as a nutjob, irrespective of your pointing out the science of what it actually did. The vast majority of folks would (and probably still do not) not equate the addition 20 or 25hz of bass to better cellos and increased ambience. My other point, however, is that the reflexive dimminution and/or dismissal of the effect simply because the scientific cause cannot be immediately produced is somewhat arrogant. It is, indeed, possible that the subjective effect has, in fact, preceded the identification of the objective cause. Much very excellent science has been done in that fashion. As has been pointed out, myth--audio or otherwise---has had a historical habit of sometimes becoming science and vice-versa. Att least as arrogant and the somewhat more evil mirror image of the above is that which uses the lack of objective proof to promulgate falsehoods and outright dangerous dis/misinformation. I readily admit that it is more than possible that any particular effect is complete nonsense, only in someone's imagination or, worse yet, an utter and blatant (and contemptible) attempt to profit off someone's ignorance. Demanding the immediate production of a scientific basis for someone's subjective hearing of a change is, IMO, mostly admirable, but I suspect that 98% of us don't have the education, time, or wherewithall to find that specific research much less do that sort of science and analysis oneself if it hasn't yet been done. And so we're left the problem that there is much that we know, much that we don't know, and much in between. IMO, because of that, hubris and ad hominem attacks really should have no place here as we're so often left to (if we are really honest and humble with ourselves) our own incomplete knowledge to try to figure out what is what. -- rgro Rg System information ------------------------ Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
