Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[wgscott]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I don't see why it's any worse than "grammar Nazi."

 

I very much appreciate your support, but @christopher3393 has a compelling objection, so out of respect for him and his personal history, I respectfully suggest we should all retire the term and use something less inflammatory to convey the idea.  Better yet, if some of those folks who are constantly calling for banning others could tone it down a bit, it would remove the need for ridiculing their intolerance.  

 

(As a side note, Seinfeld took a lot of flack for "soup nazi" as it can be read to trivialize the crimes of the real ones, so these things can easily backfire.)

[mansr]

Can we call them the Spanish Inquisition then?

[wgscott]

 

[mansr]

I expected that.

[wgscott]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Can we call them the Spanish Inquisition then?

 

Only if we get to refer to ML as "The Pope."

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

I expected that.

 

I see what you did there.

[esldude]

54 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I very much appreciate your support, but @christopher3393 has a compelling objection, so out of respect for him and his personal history, I respectfully suggest we should all retire the term and use something less inflammatory to convey the idea.  Better yet, if some of those folks who are constantly calling for banning others could tone it down a bit, it would remove the need for ridiculing their intolerance.  

 

(As a side note, Seinfeld took a lot of flack for "soup nazi" as it can be read to trivialize the crimes of the real ones, so these things can easily backfire.)

I am going to dissent here. 

 

I in no way wish to cause people harm or distress.  Yet we have to bastardize the language making certain things off limits forever more?  No, I don't see that as a good path. 

 

If the terms that some find offensive were directly used with that intent it would be one thing.  That was not the case here.

 

What if a red car ran over my first puppy and I have never recovered, making me see red when I hear the word.  Should I expect everyone to not use the word red because it bothers me?  I realize this is not quite that.  But where is the line appropriately drawn. 

 

The intolerance asking for banning of dissenting views is far more distasteful than terms of other intolerant groups.   

 

 

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, esldude said:

The intolerance asking for banning of dissenting views is far more distasteful than terms of other intolerant groups.   

 

There are some very fine people on both sides 

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There are some very fine people on both sides 

[mansr]

And then there's Hitchens's razor:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[fas42]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I see. So Frank is talking about the depth and not width of the soundstage when saying speakers disappear? That would make it a slightly different point, in which case I withdraw my phase comment

 

 

 

Opus101, Richard, did a good job of clarifying an apparent reason for why the perceptual behaviours occur - any audible anomalies that pinpoint the location of the drivers are overriden by the cues of the recording content - you 'see' the space of the recording, rather than speakers being the source of sounds.

 

Both width and depth are presented - a particularly telling variation is when playing true mono material through the stereo speakers, ie, identical content in left and right channels. If one stands close to the line of the speakers, and midway between them then the sound appears directly in front of you, with depth to it depending upon how the recording was made - same thing as "sweet spot" presentation. Then you move sideways, closer to one of the speakers - the source of the sound will "follow you", not remain tied to the centre of the speakers - it's still "in front of you". If the behaviour is fully manifested then you can move sideways until you're directly in front of one of the speakers, left or right, and the sound is still "the same". The key thing is that the presentation doesn't alter while moving from midway between the speakers to directly in front of one - and in fact one can move outside the area between the speakers, and it still works!

 

Normal stereo material has full positional information, which retains its integrity while moving anywhere in relation to the speakers; the mono exercise just makes what's going on, perceptually, more clear cut.

[pkane2001]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Opus101, Richard, did a good job of clarifying an apparent reason for why the perceptual behaviours occur - any audible anomalies that pinpoint the location of the drivers are overriden by the cues of the recording content - you 'see' the space of the recording, rather than speakers being the source of sounds.

 

Both width and depth are presented - a particularly telling variation is when playing true mono material through the stereo speakers, ie, identical content in left and right channels. If one stands close to the line of the speakers, and midway between them then the sound appears directly in front of you, with depth to it depending upon how the recording was made - same thing as "sweet spot" presentation. Then you move sideways, closer to one of the speakers - the source of the sound will "follow you", not remain tied to the centre of the speakers - it's still "in front of you". If the behaviour is fully manifested then you can move sideways until you're directly in front of one of the speakers, left or right, and the sound is still "the same". The key thing is that the presentation doesn't alter while moving from midway between the speakers to directly in front of one - and in fact one can move outside the area between the speakers, and it still works!

 

I do understand better what you've been trying to say. The width of the soundstage and the horizontal positioning in that soundstage is due to phase differences between left and right channels. Depth is another matter, as that has to do with reproducing some of the early reflections that are recorded with the main signal. You might be right that the system must be of a certain level of quality in order to reproduce these early reflections well enough. Well enough for them to fool the ear into thinking the signal is coming from behind the speakers.

 

Quote

Normal stereo material has full positional information, which retains its integrity while moving anywhere in relation to the speakers.

 

A lot of the 'normal' stereo material is manufactured by applying a certain amount of phase difference and reverb to the signal to position it at a certain spot in the soundstage. The original recorded signal contains few real spatial cues, as it is often captured from a mic close to the performer/instrument and designed to remove as much of the reverberant  information from it as possible. More often than not, you're hearing positional cues that are artificially created in post-processing.

 

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

And then there's Hitchens's razor:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

Was this asserted prior to "Russell's teapot"?

[Allan F]

18 hours ago, esldude said:

If the terms that some find offensive were directly used with that intent it would be one thing.  That was not the case here.

 

What if a red car ran over my first puppy and I have never recovered, making me see red when I hear the word.  Should I expect everyone to not use the word red because it bothers me?  I realize this is not quite that.  But where is the line appropriately drawn.

 

An inadequate test and, IMO, a hardly apt analogy to support it. It might satisfy If empathy and sensitivity are eliminated as relevant considerations.

[marce]

I think everyone needs to stop examining there belly button fluff and get back on topic... I have now thanks to this thread got in touch with my sensitive and feminine side, now can the packs line up and the scrummage begin again... 

Lighten up every one its an audio forum. (computer)...

[rando]

Go thank @mourip and try not to be too greedy about how much attention you draw when the women start to show up.  

[jabbr]

36 minutes ago, rando said:

Go thank @mourip and try not to be too greedy about how much attention you draw when the women start to show up.  

 

Good point fellas, if there is an attempt to date women, you will hopefully learn that listening to opinions unsupported by mathematical proof, will go a long way.

[rando]

Teresa is polite and reasonable in accommodating others ideas.  There is no reason anyone here should be unable to voice their thoughts in a manner similar to the one she uses.  The self propagating wars and +100 page threads that spill out grown men cursing and name calling on par with 10 year old's preclude others engaging in normal mature adult behaviors.  

 

What I saw missing in the mention of duels is how many thick layers of veneer needed to be penetrated before conduct was so deplorable it rated chancing death or exclusion.  Death being preferable as it didn't harm ones friends or family.  When illegitimate behavior and misconduct are given right of passage.  Duels no longer have meaning.  They are shootouts.  

[mansr]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Good point fellas, if there is an attempt to date women, you will hopefully learn that listening to opinions unsupported by mathematical proof, will go a long way.

What if you're dating a mathematician?

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

What if you're dating a mathematician?

Even more so, If she shows you a proof she’s excited about and you call her an idiot you ain’t gettin any. Trust me.

 

 

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Even more so, If she shows you a proof she’s excited about and you call her an idiot you ain’t gettin any. Trust me.

If the proof is correct, she's obviously not an idiot.

[jabbr]

22 minutes ago, mansr said:

If the proof is correct, she's obviously not an idiot.

 hang out long enough and not all proofs will be complete yet. Just wait.

 

Also, women mathematicians are also girls too (that’s a good thing (tm) )

 

Another one for you: What is the proper answer to question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

[mansr]

8 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Another one for you: What is the proper answer to question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

Easy: "Dear, it's not the dress that makes you look fat."

[lucretius]

16 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 Another one for you: What is the proper answer to question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

 

"Do I look stupid?"

[marce]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 hang out long enough and not all proofs will be complete yet. Just wait.

 

Also, women mathematicians are also girls too (that’s a good thing (tm) )

 

Another one for you: What is the proper answer to question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

Darling don't worry about the dress, the cellulite is more of a concern

Slap!!!!

Ouch!

Who ever say's honesty pays is single.