Why is long term listening better for evaluating components?

[esldude]

Are these the ones in particular you are referring to with your previous comment? I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I don't honestly have the time to practice google-fu right now with the number of hits that will come back, and would appreciate the very articles themselves that you used to form your opinions.

 

In return, I will make time to read them if I have not already read them.

 

-Paul

 

I have been following John Curl's work for over 25 years. You want me to condense them for your easy consumption...well sorry, not doing the work for you. You want to know, spend the time. You won't need 25 years, but no the couple I offered were just some I found quickly.

 

So practice up on your google-fu, trust me for my interpretation or drop it. Neither Mr. Curl or I care that much. You want my take on it as to what Mr. Curl thinks, will take a couple long PM's. You want my take on such things direct, maybe a couple more PM's. Rather presumptuous of you to ask me to do the work for you. Do it or not, I don't care. You clearly don't trust my opinion, so why would you wish me to transfer a half lifetime's experience to you quickly and easily?

[esldude]

Maybe a bit hasty in my last post, though I don't take it back.

 

You want to know something of Mr. Curl's work, buy some of his designs and live with them. An interesting combination of rational, objective, evidence based design and informed subjective perception. None of his products I have experienced have been anything less than very good, usually more than just very good. If proof is in the pudding, Mr. Curl has nothing to be ashamed of I think.

[Paul R]

This is pure bullcrap Dennis.

 

Lets see, you want people to accept you are an authority on John Curl's opinions.

 

For one, I don't particularly believe your conclusions, but I was willing to make time to try and understand your thinking.

 

For another, if you have time to post crap like the message this is in reply to, you have plenty of time to pull three or four links out of your bookmarks and post them. I assume you do keep track of your research?

 

And as for 25 years of research, I really am not buying that. If you had spent that much time on the subject, you would have references readily available to share without much trouble at all.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been following John Curl's work for over 25 years. You want me to condense them for your easy consumption...well sorry, not doing the work for you. You want to know, spend the time. You won't need 25 years, but no the couple I offered were just some I found quickly.

 

So practice up on your google-fu, trust me for my interpretation or drop it. Neither Mr. Curl or I care that much. You want my take on it as to what Mr. Curl thinks, will take a couple long PM's. You want my take on such things direct, maybe a couple more PM's. Rather presumptuous of you to ask me to do the work for you. Do it or not, I don't care. You clearly don't trust my opinion, so why would you wish me to transfer a half lifetime's experience to you quickly and easily?

[esldude]

This is pure bullcrap Dennis.

 

Lets see, you want people to accept you are an authority on John Curl's opinions.

 

For one, I don't particularly believe your conclusions, but I was willing to make time to try and understand your thinking.

 

For another, if you have time to post crap like the message this is in reply to, you have plenty of time to pull three or four links out of your bookmarks and post them. I assume you do keep track of your research?

 

And as for 25 years of research, I really am not buying that. If you had spent that much time on the subject, you would have references readily available to share without much trouble at all.

 

-Paul

 

So argue with John Curl or ague with me. You are not winning in any case.

 

Do the work yourself or do not, I do not owe you that.

[Julf]

You forgot "propeller headed" robotic parody.....etc... ;-)

 

Fixed...

[chg]

You might find the sound bite method of debate having a few problems if you wish to actually learn the truth instead of look cute and witty for a moment. You might look at and consider these designers for more than 2.5 minutes (10 minutes divided by 4 designers or is that too objective for you?).

 

I have read, thought about, listened to and in 3 of the 4 cases owned equipment from those designers you bring up. If you spent ten minutes, then I have a bit more to go on in making a judgement about their ideas. You might call that bias, I would call it informed opinion.

 

Mr. Weiss would seem to be as close to a purely objective designer as you can find. The quote you used is the only one even hinting otherwise, and as I described it was practically stuffed into his mouth in the interview.

 

If you knew the history of his equipment and studied the change in his circuits over the years, you would find Mr. Johnson relying on objective measures more than your quote (which I think is from 20 years ago) would perhaps lead you to believe.

 

Nelson Pass has done tests and written articles debunking some things, been a quite playful designer with all sorts of circuits while listening and deciding what he likes. He most definitely has a considerable objective input into his work.

 

John Curl has authored articles about distortion in quite some detail. I am not talking about articles in some puff piece audio mag spouting opinion. They were rigorous articles investigating different types of distortion. He too picks his designs by what he thinks sounds best, but studying distortion and hearing is what informs which kind of transfer function he tries to achieve. He measured distortion of every component in picking it in some of his past designs. Measuring the distortion for component selection is hardly throwing in a part and listening then saying ooh! or ugh!

 

So if you really want the background on someone, doing a sound bite quote and coloring them black or white is a fairly immature methodology. If that is all it takes to satisfy you then that is your choice. I am not so impressed however. Knowing the background of someone can inform your opinions. As you try repeatedly to pigeon-hole me that way, you might understand me better if you looked a little deeper. I am sure I am not 100% right all the time, and I also am not 100% some robotic parody of your idea of an inhuman objectivist.

 

if you wish to actually learn the truth…

 

As stated before, in my opinion, you're not interested in truth.

 

If you spent ten minutes, then I have a bit more to go on in making a judgement about their ideas.

 

I said I spent ten minutes selecting four names, Google, skim interviews, post a few relevant sentences. Did I say I spent ten minutes in total research in my lifetime?

 

Mr. Weiss would seem to be as close to a purely objective designer as you can find. The quote you used is the only one even hinting otherwise, and as I described it was practically stuffed into his mouth in the interview.

 

Your subjective opinion. So, he said it, but (according to you) didn't mean it. That sounds logical. Also, are you saying that Mr. Weiss lacks conviction and integrity? According to you, if pressured hard enough he will say anything in an interview.

 

you would find Mr. Johnson relying on objective measures more than your quote…

 

Who said he didn't rely on objective measurements? And, does that make his comments regarding subjectivity false?

 

He (Nelson Pass) most definitely has a considerable objective input into his work.

 

Who said he didn't rely on objective measurements? And, does that make his comments regarding subjectivity false?

 

I am not talking about articles in some puff piece audio mag spouting opinion.

 

Your subjective opinion. It's a "puff piece" if you don't like what it says.

 

So if you really want the background on someone, doing a sound bite quote and coloring them black or white is a fairly immature methodology.

 

A quote to a normal person means something someone said, to you it means the opposite somehow.

 

Paul got nowhere with you and I'm absolutely certain I wouldn't either, so it's just a waste of time.

[chg]

I have been following John Curl's work for over 25 years. You want me to condense them for your easy consumption...well sorry, not doing the work for you. You want to know, spend the time. You won't need 25 years, but no the couple I offered were just some I found quickly.

 

Here's a thought: You say that audiophiles are gullible, dillusional, fools for wasting their money on things like cables and tweaks. You say you spent 25 years researching this stuff to conclude that none of it's necessary, and people shouldn't waste their money on such things.

 

Being that time = money: That would mean that you could have skipped the research and purchased every single tweak known to man and wired your entire system with Nordost Odin and still been ahead hundreds of thousands. What does that make you?

[Audio_ELF]

A quote to a normal person means something someone said, to you it means the opposite somehow.

With respect (and in defence of Dennis somewhat) yes a quote is something that someone said. However a quote can be taken out of context.

 

First off you really should write the web address where your quote comes from. That's a fundamental rule of quoting - that way people can see in context the quote.

 

Lets (for example) take the quote from Daniel Weiss (I'm not sure if this is the source where you quoted from but I found it via google search "Daniel Weiss 'Trust your ears'"...

 

MI: Any last thoughts for our readers?

 

DW: Trust your ears. Trust your taste. Don’t believe everything you are told about tweaks. If you do A/B testing of some gear always try to do it blindfolded with the help of another person. Often one hears some enhancement because one is “supposed” to hear it. Similar to the placebo effect in medicine.

 

Now (and this is my interpretation) is that here Daniel is talking nothing about how he designs equipment. He is talking about how a user chooses equipment. In essence he is suggesting we demo equipment not just trust to the specifications. Even if you don't try to interpret at what point you should "Trust your ears", he specifically suggests that you do it blindfolded which is already moving away from the pure subjective viewpoint.

 

In that interview (and again I may be referring to a different interview) he doesn't mention how he designs equipment (by listening vs measurement) at all.

 

Eloise

[chg]

With respect (and in defence of Dennis somewhat) yes a quote is something that someone said. However a quote can be taken out of context.

 

First off you really should write the web address where your quote comes from. That's a fundamental rule of quoting - that way people can see in context the quote.

 

Lets (for example) take the quote from Daniel Weiss (I'm not sure if this is the source where you quoted from but I found it via google search "Daniel Weiss 'Trust your ears'"...

 

 

 

Now (and this is my interpretation) is that here Daniel is talking nothing about how he designs equipment. He is talking about how a user chooses equipment. In essence he is suggesting we demo equipment not just trust to the specifications. Even if you don't try to interpret at what point you should "Trust your ears", he specifically suggests that you do it blindfolded which is already moving away from the pure subjective viewpoint.

 

In that interview (and again I may be referring to a different interview) he doesn't mention how he designs equipment (by listening vs measurement) at all.

 

Eloise

 

Well at least you don't hide the fact, i.e., Trouble maker…

 

This is in reference to earlier discussions and Dennis knows where the quote is from. Thank you very much budinsky.

 

Now (and this is my interpretation) is that here Daniel is talking nothing about how he designs equipment.

 

Did I say how he designs equipment?

 

"He is talking about how a user chooses equipment. In essence he is suggesting we demo equipment not just trust to the specifications."

 

Yes, that's partly what I'm saying, but Dennis doesn't even want to believe that, which has been covered already before. Dennis wants to believe that he puts it together, sticks it in a box and that's it. Zero listening.

 

Even if you don't try to interpret at what point you should "Trust your ears", he specifically suggests that you do it blindfolded which is already moving away from the pure subjective viewpoint.

 

He doesn't suggest, he says "IF you do A/B testing". "Trust your ears" is it's own sentence, it's not taken out of context.

[Audio_ELF]

Well at least you don't hide the fact, i.e., Trouble maker…

 

This is in reference to earlier discussions and Dennis knows where the quote is from. Thank you very much budinsky.

No, it was a post in an open forum - you posted...

esldude,

 

In addition to Bob Stuart's comments on subjectivity here are a few others that you might want to try and dispute. Or, you could just say they're wrong and you're right.

 

Daniel Weiss: "Trust your ears".

How is Dennis or anyone meant to know where you are quoting from?

 

Did I say how he designs equipment?

No, but I don't think it was wrong to assume that as it was continuing from a discussion where (I believe) Bob Stuarts design methodology came into question and the other quotes were about designing equipment, that you were implying the "Trust your ears" statement was also about design methodology. If you didn't intend it I will accept that but I would still read it that way.

 

Yes, that's partly what I'm saying, but Dennis doesn't even want to believe that, which has been covered already before. Dennis wants to believe that he puts it together, sticks it in a box and that's it. Zero listening.

I believe (and I don't have the quotes) that Daniel Weiss has described his design process similar to that actually. He designs through measurement, and only once finished will pass it to others to listen to.

 

He doesn't suggest, he says "IF you do A/B testing". "Trust your ears" is it's own sentence, it's not taken out of context.

Yes you are right he says "IF doing A/B testing" - but I would put the important emphasis on the second part of the same sentence "do it blindfolded". But that's just another example of how two people interpret one sentence differently

 

Personally I think you are splitting hairs about if the "Trust your ears" written as a quote from Daniel Weiss is meant as a separate sentence - without a direct transcript of the interview it's impossible to know EXACTLY how Daniel put it and how he was asked the question and even then its impossible to know what was going through Daniel's mind. The quote should have been the whole paragraph and with the question as posed by the interviewer.

 

Eloise

[chg]

No, it was a post in an open forum - you posted...

 

 

No, it was also covered in an even earlier discussion. He knows where it came from, we discussed it.

 

No, but I don't think it was wrong to assume that as it was continuing from a discussion where (I believe) Bob Stuarts design methodology came into question and the other quotes were about designing equipment, that you were implying the "Trust your ears" statement was also about design methodology. If you didn't intend it I will accept that but I would still read it that way.

 

Again, it was from an the even earlier discussion. I wouldn't expect you to know that, so I see where you're coming from. Again, Dennis (and Paul) understand what was being discussed.

 

I believe (and I don't have the quotes) that Daniel Weiss has described his design process similar to that actually. He designs through measurement, and only once finished will pass it to others to listen to.

 

That's correct, but again, Dennis didn't even want to believe that. That is, that he passes it on to others for final approval by listening.

 

Personally I think you are splitting hairs about if the "Trust your ears" written as a quote from Daniel Weiss is meant as a separate sentence

 

I think you are the one who is splitting hairs.

 

The quote should have been the whole paragraph and with the question as posed by the interviewer.

 

Again, Dennis and Paul were able to follow because it was covered in the past. Maybe Paul would be kind enough to find the prior discussion for you, I'm too tired.

[Audio_ELF]

[chg]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2090[/ATTACH]

 

I just took a quick look for that old thread but can't find it, it was quite a while back. Like I said, maybe Paul will be kind enough to find it for you if you're interested.

[4est]

Your over-simplifying I think.

 

He definitely listens, but he also designs rationally. It isn't so clearly an either/or. He does both. Sometimes his measurements pointed up things he hadn't heard. Other times he went searching for things he heard and hadn't measured.

 

"Maybe it is just me, but it still sort of sounds like he trusts his ears first, and then looks for the causes with measurements."

 

I see this as far from an over simplification, and straight to the point. You keep railing on how measurements are the end all, whereas Curl uses listening tests as conformation and then seeks reasons for his conclusions. Frankly, I think you are just in denial Dennis.

[Jud]

With the interview quotes, the statements about interview quotes, and the statements about statements about interview quotes, my humble personal opinion is that this thread is approaching a level of sheer excitement ordinarily attained only by graduate theses on the works of Proust.

 

Oh, and Carthago delenda est. http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/civility-13433/index4.html#post179656

[Paul R]

I don't have any arguments with John Curl- you are the one insisting that you have the gospel truth here.

 

Part of the problem is you see this, and virtually every other conversation, as some kind of contest you have to win.

 

To be blunt, who the frack cares about winning or loosing? We are talking about audio equipment and design choices here. Not your personal scoreboard.

 

As I said, I was willing to take time out to read what convinced you of your outlier opinion, and even, perhaps, even be convinced somewhat to your point of view. You are the one with a dog in this hunt, not me.

 

For the record, I disagree with your conclusions and greatly suspect the people (authorities) you claim share them would disagree as well.

 

Won't ever know unless someone asks them will we? But then of course, respectable people have asked them, and reported accurately what their replies were. And yet, you dismiss that because what they actually said seems to disagree with what you want them to say.

 

-Paul

 

 

So argue with John Curl or ague with me. You are not winning in any case.

 

Do the work yourself or do not, I do not owe you that.