Popular Post Allan F Posted May 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: If the system " honestly and accurately replays the [bad] recordings without adding color and favorites" won't a bad recording then sound bad? I don't see how can it be otherwise, absent disagreement as to what a "bad" recording is. betosten, Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 2 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 13, 2020 9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: If transparency is not the goal then all bets are off. If transparency is the goal you cannot know what each and every recording sounded like live but the clues would be how real it sounds on playback and that all playbacks on a system don't have a signature, albeit euphonic sound. High fidelity is the goal of audiophile systems and transparency is one aspect of high fidelity. While one never knows exactly how an original recording sounded like at the source, a sample of recordings of acoustic music with instruments whose sound is very familiar to us can provide a basis for evaluating the accuracy or fidelity of a system's reproduction. That is what led to Harry Pearson's definition of "the absolute sound", viz. "the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in a real space". A system that approaches that ideal will readily distinguish bad recordings from good ones. Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, bluesman said: But the critical question is whether it presents the sound of the actual acoustic instruments playing in the actual space in which they were recorded. If my regular gigging archtop acoustic guitar sounds in a recording like a fine old DeAngelico with a carved solid spruce top, it’s a bad recording because that guitar is a garden variety Ibanez with a laminated top. Many recordings are juiced to make things sound bigger than they are, just as many performers process or augment their sound live. Listen to Martin Taylor’s early recordings. He used to play a big archtop (a Yamaha as I recall) with both a standard magnetic pickup and piezo sensors in the bridge. He played this live through a stereo rig with sound reinforcement in large venues, and I think he recorded it both miked and direct. It sure sounds great, and he’s one of my favorite players. But when playing the recordings, it sounds somehow artificial as though the guitar were 15 feet across. Yet these are technically excellent recordings because that’s how he sounded in concert. "The absolute sound" definition is a only reference ideal or goal. Unless one is present at a recording session, it is virtually impossible to know how the instruments sounded in the "actual space in which they were recorded". No single recording is likely to reveal the fidelity of a playback system. However, listening to a range of what is generally regarded to be well recorded acoustic music can establish that a system is one of high fidelity or accuracy. One can assume that such as system will reproduce all recordings with fidelity. In the context of the specific type of example that you provided, it may be difficult or impossible to distinguish a bad recording from a good one absent knowledge of both the recording venue and particular instrument played. In such cases, one is presumably left with how the recording subjectively involves us on an emotional level. Bill Brown, Audiophile Neuroscience, PYP and 1 other 3 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 44 minutes ago, bluesman said: I must respectfully disagree with you. First, unless you’ve only heard one recording of an artist, you should have a pretty good idea of what he, she, or they and their instruments sound like (assuming you have some familiarity with them, a decent system and a halfway critical ear). Second, many music loving audiophiles are quite familiar with the specific instruments played by their favorite artists in any genre. They know what is being played and what it sounds like live because they’ve heard it live. From Oscar Peterson’s Bosendorfer to Miles’ Martin trumpet to Wes Montgomery’s L5 Gibson, jazz lovers know. Classical enthusiasts know that Isaac Stern’s favorite violin was the Ysaye Guarnerius. Bob Brozman fans know the sight and sound of his National resonator guitars. Etc etc etc. And pop/rock people are the same. They may not be able to tell Carnegie Hall from the Academy of Music as a recording setting, but they have a good idea of the sound to be expected from a fine venue. Further confusing this is the great variation in mic techniques and equipment. But the sound of the artist(s) is not camouflaged beyond recognition by any good recording in my experience. And I respectfully disagree with you, at least with respect to the degree of certainty you appear to proclaim. You are expressing the point of view of a practicing musician with a "tuned ear". While many aspire to that level, whether they can achieve it is an open question. You assume that most audiophiles have heard their favourite artists live which, desirable as it may be, is also questionable. Moreover, even if they have, the nature of the venue and its unique acoustics may play a more important role in the characterization of the sound than the identification of the instruments themselves, especially if any amplification is used. "It is the difference in opinion that make horse races." Teresa 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 hour ago, bluesman said: Many years ago, I recorded a series of instrumental solo passages on my high speed Crown deck for my audio dealer (and dear friend) to use when evaluating & demo’ing equipment. These included my Yamaha grand, my silver Getzen Eterna trumpet, my upright bass, my Martin D28, my flute and my alto sax. As an experiment, I also recorded the same passages with my D28 using different kinds of strings. We told the listeners only that each passage was different, and everyone was able to hear the difference. We even did some repeated AB testing, and they clearly heard A as different from B. But in over a decade, not one of his customers ever guessed that the guitar strings were the difference they heard. They guessed everything from altered tube bias to different crossover points to reversed phase because they expected the changes to be in the equipment. Once they knew what they were hearing, they used that comparison to guide their choices. I know from personal experience that a change of guitar strings can make a very significant difference in the sound of an acoustic guitar. But, so what? IMO, you are undermining your own argument when you relate that most people erroneously guessed that there had been an equipment change. I never suggested that people can't hear differences, an assumption from which your entire argument flows. 1 hour ago, bluesman said: Nonmusician customers at an audio store heard everything I’m talking about, even though it was subtle and they didn’t know exactly why they heard it. So I’ll ask you to ponder what seems like a dichotomy in your thoughts. How could someone who can’t identify a performer with even a modicum of personal playing style despite hearing his, her or their recordings multiple times be able to pass judgment on the quality of recordings? There is no dichotomy in my thoughts. If you will forgive me for saying so, I find your post to be rather pedantic. That is particularly evidenced by your concluding rhetorical question which, by virtue of its hyperbole, grossly misstates the issue. Regardless, while it was interesting to exchange views, I see no point in continuing this discussion any further. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 46 minutes ago, Summit said: Excellent question! My answer is that it isn’t a better system if bad recordings will sound worse than on a bad system . A good audio system will not mask noise like a bad system, but all other SQ aspects will sound better. The record will still sound bad on a great audio system thou, only less bad. "Better" can mean different things to different people. It all depends on what you want from a system. To most audiophiles ia "great system" is one of highest fidelity, i.e. one that will most accurately capture and reproduce what is on the recording. A high resolution system will tend to reveal flaws in a recording more readily than one of lesser resolution. Depending on the nature of the flaw in a recording, It's difficult to see how such a system will generally make a bad recording sound "less bad". OTOH, a euphonic system will be more forgiving of bad recordings. But more importantly, a euphonic system will colour all recordings, both good and bad. Audiophile Neuroscience 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Summit said: I do not think that I will need to explain High fidelity in all post I write. I have wrote and explained it in the previous posts. You come off as patronizing and petty. I disagree, It's not difficult to hear and to understand that a better system is about much more than digging up and showing flaws. Yes as I STATED already may times, it will show the flaws more clearly but also the music. If you would rank the SQ of records from 1 to 10, where 1 is super bad SQ and 10 is the best. Tell me on which level does it start to sound better on a boom box than on a high end system? Who is sounding patronizing!? If a better system is more revealing of a recording's flaws, assuming they are serious ones, it almost inevitably will negatively affect both the sound quality and enjoyment of the music. I don't care how many time you have STATED anything. Repeating it does not make it any more or less true. And, BTW, your question is meaningless. gmgraves and Audiophile Neuroscience 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 23 minutes ago, gmgraves said: Generally not a fan of pop music. I do, however fondly recall the sound of Les Paul and Mary Ford doing “Mockingbird Hill”, and “How High the Moon“. But that was iong before the solid-body Fender or other similar contrivances from Martin, etc. George, FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model. In fact, he plays this eponymous model on "How High the Moon". BTW, Martin's guitars are virtually all hollow body acoustic models, although a number are available with pickups. Les Paul also "invented" multi-track recording. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 17 minutes ago, gmgraves said: Yes, I know that Paul was instrumental in developing the Fender solid body guitar. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, yesterday, you know. Paul is also credited with developing sound-on-sound and sound-with-sound multitrack recording. In fact, when he and then wife Mary Ford started their performing duo in the early ‘Fifties, people wondered how they achieved the effect where Mary Ford did multi part “duets” with herself. I am sure you meant to write the Gibson 'Les Paul' solid-body guitar. The success of the Fender solid-body was the impetus for Gibson to enter the market. And, of course you are correct about Les Paul developing previously unheard of recording techniques. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 30 minutes ago, gmgraves said: I might have if I knew the difference, which I did not. I knew that Paul was instrumental in the development of the solid body. But Fender, Gibson, Martin, they’re all pretty much the same to me. But thank you for the correction. But George, I wrote: "FYI Les Paul was instrumental (pun intended) in the development of the most widely played solid-body electric guitar used by top rock musicians apart from those from Fender, viz. the Gibson 'Les Paul' model." To quote a famous line from the movie 'Cool Hand Luke', "What we've got here is failure to communicate". Audiophile Neuroscience 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 Contrary to the view expressed elsewhere, high fidelity in audio, by definition, means faithful to the original recording. The better the quality of the recording, the more it can approach the unattainable ideal of sounding like a live performance. And such recordings will sound closest to that ideal when heard on a high fidelity playback system. sandyk and Teresa 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 On 5/14/2020 at 7:07 AM, bluesman said: We’re all happy when our music at home sounds real and live and pleasing. But the question was whether bad recordings can sound good. The answer is yes. For me, a recording that makes Ron Carter sound even a little like Ray Brown is a bit of a bad recording. But I love Dave Grusin’s Sheffield album “Discovered Again” anyway because the playing is excellent, the band is tight, and the music (although a bit too smooth-jazzy for me today) is fun to hear when I’m in the mood. It sounds good to me. I believe that you may be conflating the quality of the musicianship or performance with the quality of the recording. I understand the topic of this thread to refer to the technical quality of recordings in terms of sound quality and fidelity to what is being recorded. I have enjoyed listening to old 78 records with very limited frequency range because of the performances, but IMO there is no way that they can be described as good recordings. OTOH, if you view the question of whether bad recordings can sound good as whether they nevertheless can be subjectively enjoyed, IMO that is a different issue. They may "sound good", but not because of good sound. Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 26 minutes ago, bluesman said: It’s actually quite the opposite. A recording that does not capture and convey both musicianship and performance is not a good recording to me. Technical quality also matters, in equal measure. rpretive efforts on stage. From your viewpoint perhaps, but it's not the opposite in terms of what appears to be that of the OP in his initial post creating this thread and most of the replies to it. Moreover, adopting your point of view, I don't see it as a question of the recording capturing and conveying the musicianship and performance, but rather one of the quality of the musicianship and performance that the recording is attempting to capture. IOW, IMO you have it backwards. Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 38 minutes ago, SJK said: As an aficionado of classical music, without reservation I will say you would greatly enjoy the Los Lobos recording of Kiko. I just know it. Trust me, with considerable reservation, he would not. You don't know George. He hates electric guitar, especially if it has any distortion, which Kiko has plenty of. Bill Brown 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 28 minutes ago, bluesman said: Wow - I have no response because I have absolutely no idea what that means! So I think I'll go sip some wine with my wife and have a leisurely dinner. Cheers! I highly doubt that, unless you are intentionally trying to appear obtuse. But no worries, as they say in Oz. Enjoy the wine. I'm about to make myself a double martini. L'Chaim! "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 28 minutes ago, firedog said: Not sure what you are referring to. Neither KOB or Meets he Rhythm Section is RVG: The Pepper was produced by Leonard Koenig and engineered by Roy DuNaan. DuNaan was a great engineer if you find some of his recordings. KOB was engineered by Fred Plaut. FYI: A Rudy Van Gelder Discography "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Mayfair said: I can enjoy a "bad" recording of a good performance, for example Artur Schnabel's Beethoven sonata cycle recorded in 1932-33, or Charlie Parker's Dial Sessions, recorded in 1946-47. On the other hand, I can't enjoy a good recording of a bad performance. Fair enough. But that was not the original subject of this thread. Rather, it was whether the playback of a bad recording can sound good from a sonic point of view. Somewhere along the way, some have changed the substance of the question being asked, which naturally may change the nature of the answers to be anticipated. I don't believe that it has been suggested that a good performance cannot be enjoyed despite the poor recording quality. Needless to add, a good recording of that same performance would invariably provide even more enjoyment. Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Mayfair said: Hi Allan , The first paragraph of my comment reads: "I can enjoy a "bad" recording of a good performance, for example Artur Schnabel's Beethoven sonata cycle recorded in 1932-33, or Charlie Parker's Dial Sessions, recorded in 1946-47. I'd love if it their performances had been better recorded, but then I wouldn't be listening to Artur Schnabel or Charlie Parker. I try to "listen through" the recording to the performance - that's what "sounds good" to me..." I thought that tied in with "whether the playback of a bad recording can sound good from a sonic point of view." , if not, my apologies. There is absolutely no reason for any apologies. Your post was valid and appropriate from how you viewed the issue. Perhaps it's a subtle distinction, but I understood the original post to contemplate the technical sound quality only, and not the quality or enjoyment of the performance. IOW, can a poor recording sound better on a high-end system? The majority opined that it would not because the system would be more revealing of the flaws. A poor recording may "sound good" because of the performance, but not because of good sound. Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Allan F Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, gmgraves said: I tend to separate the two; the technical quality and the performance quality. And I believe in my late friend, J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile’s axiom “The better the recording, the poorer the performance and the better the performance, the poorer the recording.” What Gordon was saying there (among other things) is that the employees of large commercial recording companies’ (who tend to have the best performers/orchestras under contract) primary concern is NOT SQ! To quote the late Ira Gershwin, "It Ain't Necessarily So". But it was true far too much of the time. "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2020 11 hours ago, bluesman said: The fastest-is-best school is not limited to jazz. For example, Liszt was the bebop king of his day. He wrote technically difficult music for the same reason, and he was a first rate showoff and braggart. And if you took away their effects pedals, many rock and metal guitarists would sound like middle schoolers practicing scales and riffs. On the other hand, great players feel no need to show off. Randy Johnston is a wonderful guitarist with chops to burn. But he’s a sensitive soloist and often plays simple melodies with little embellishment. Playing as many notes as you can at every opportunity suggests some combination of insecurity and immaturity to me. I couldn't agree with you more. IMO, your comments apply particularly well to many "shredder" guitarists whose main goal is to impress you with how many notes they can play in a second. Give me a soulful blues bend instead any day of the week. Audiophile Neuroscience and Teresa 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 18, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 18, 2020 On 5/16/2020 at 11:27 PM, Confused said: I did say at the end of my post that "I think it is impossible to generalise with the "bad recording" issue". So what is a bad recording? Much of my post referred to my own subjective observations. If there is something in the recording that irritates me, then a decent system will faithfully reproduce the irritation. What irritates me, may not irritate another. So someone else may be able be able to listen to the same track on a well optimised system, that is doing such a good job extracting every other detail of the music that the listener can indeed listen past the "irritation". But when I listen, I still just hear the irritation, if it happens to be something I am personally subjectively sensitive to. As a different example, others in this thread have mentioned issues with sound staging in recordings. I love a recording with a decent sound stage, but curiously, recordings with obviously poor sound staging do not irritate me. So I can "listen past" such problems in a recording, and still enjoy the music and the performance. For others, the poor sound staging in the recording could be so annoying that the track ultimately becomes unlistenable. The above would appear, unintentionally or otherwise, to define a poor recording as one that is "unlistenable". Surely it does not have to be that bad to be called a poor recording. The fact that you can "listen past" one obvious flaw and someone else can "listen past" another obvious flaw does not change the fact that both are poor recordings. In each case we have an example of a poor recording that may "sound good" to some, but not because of good sound. On 5/16/2020 at 11:27 PM, Confused said: This is me, my subjective world. As a good example of this, if a recording has truly excessive HF, the recording will annoy me. It will annoy me in the car, it will annoy me on my headphone rig, it will annoy me using an iPhone and earbuds, it will annoy me on almost every hifi system on the planet...With this being an aspect I am sensitive to personally, I will not be able to listen past it, no matter how "well sorted" the system... The example above is different. Virtually everyone would consider a recording with "truly excessive HF" of the type you describe to be a poor recording. The test is not whether or not you can "listen past it". Objectively, it is a poor recording. Having said that, there are flaws and there are flaws. There are recordings with minor ones where only a subjective evaluation would consider it to be a poor recording. With these, it is a question of personal opinion. But there are many with major flaws that can and should generally be considered to be poor recordings. The fact that some can "listen past" those major flaws does not change that characterization. kumakuma, Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 3 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted May 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2020 8 hours ago, Confused said: So perhaps this is one of the keys to the "can bad recordings sound good" question? If one can personally listen past the flaws that define the recordings as "bad", then the answer is yes. Bottom line in your opinion: A bad recording can sound good if you can enjoy it despite the bad sound [quality]. John Dyson, Audiophile Neuroscience and Confused 2 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted June 1, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 1, 2020 1 hour ago, gmgraves said: You are mostly talking about “pop” music, and that’s a subject about which I never consider. Frankly, I don’t care what pop music recordings sound like because I NEVER listen to them. To me, modern pop music genres are just noise, all of them! The idea of well recorded noise is one that simply never crosses my mind. 1 hour ago, gmgraves said: Since you NEVER listen to them, your generalized hyperbole about pop music recordings would appear to be nothing more than ignorance based opinion formed primarily from your well known extreme distaste for the sound of electric guitars. As with every genre, there are recordings that sound good and others that do not. Having said that, I would certainly agree that the incidence of poor and/or overly compressed recordings from the major pop music labels is more prevalent than for either classical or jazz recordings. Teresa and daverich4 1 1 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted June 11, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: Frank, you have saturated this thread with your POV and, as others have put it, you spam and potentially derail every thread you enter with your POV, the same monotonous POV, the broken-record POV. In Benny Hill's words "you abuse the privilege". Yes, I started this thread curious as to what others thought on the issue. I represented your POV in the OP on the off chance someone just entered the hobby having freshly arrived from Mars, and hadn't seen your POV all over the internet. It is not necessary for you to repeat the same POV ad nauseam and I subtly pointed to this in post 8 "(we know your answer Frank)"....So, as the OP of this thread I am asking you to take the "Frank show" to one of the "Frank show magic threads". Thanks David, I would have given you a "Thanks" vote in response to the above, but for the fact that @fas42 has enjoyed a prominent place on my Ignore List for a while now. Audiophile Neuroscience, AudioDoctor and Teresa 1 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Popular Post Allan F Posted July 12, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 12, 2020 43 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said: No, it just means that your assertions are false if trying to apply to anyone but yourself. They are based on a logical fallacy that begs the question about your method being prerequiste to evolution of the system. If one believes this, as you do, there is no logical argument that can seemingly refute the premise because the conclusion is in the premise. One cannot reason somebody out of a place that they didn't use reason to arrive at. A rare example of the correct use of the term "begs the question". Teresa and Audiophile Neuroscience 2 "Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now