Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

About tmtomh

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

5474 profile views
  1. Thanks! When @JoshM does a new Best Version of, I have to jump in! 😀
  2. @JoshM, once again a fantastic article, filled with great background info, passion for the music, and of course excellent sonic analysis. And once again, you arrive at the correct conclusion as well! 😀 I've been a huge fan of the Nunn/Wood mastering ever since I first heard it around maybe 2015 - I thought it blew the others away for all three albums. It is indeed possible that Five Leaves Left is not as much of an improvement because it's just the mastering that's new compared to 2000 rather than the digital transfer of the analogue source, but I feel that too clearly surpasses th
  3. If you were willing or able to articulate what I misrepresented about what you wrote, then it would be possible to give credence to your indignance. As it is, though, you've responded twice to the same comment and have said nothing of substance either time. You have, however, engaged in name-calling and ad hominem attacks, which as you know are now against forum rules more clearly than ever before. @The Computer Audiophile, this is what happens when subjectivist members of the forum get the message that they can respond to any use of logic or reasoning by an objectivist with the cl
  4. This comment illustrates a key part of the problem with this conversation. I wrote that objectivists don't rely on measurements alone - they use them to rule out some gear, and then they still have to consider other factors, and of course they still listen and evaluate on that basis. I also wrote that subjectivists don't purely use their ears, and also take measurements into account. You've responded with selective and completely one-sided "agreement," concurring that subjectivists use measurements to rule out bad gear - precisely what I wrote about what objectivists do
  5. Thanks for your reply, Chris. A belief in measurements is "absolutely the simplest thing possible" only if one agrees with your caricature of that belief as "1+1=2, my work is done here." It's the same thing you did in response to @Archimago's comment above - ignore and dismiss every bit of nuance in what he wrote, and instead say that his comment "reminds you of" people who like everything to be black and white - the most simplistic version of an objectivist that you can conjure. This is straw-manning. No one gets to buy or audition infinite brands or models of equipm
  6. How is relying on others’ listening impressions any more active or any more rigorous a use of one’s brain than analyzing measurements? How is the conviction that measurements have limited or no useful correlation with sonics any more or less black and white than the belief that measurements and sonics have a fairly strong level of correlation? How does a belief in measurements reflect the human desire for simplicity any more than a belief that one need not pay much attention to measurements? it seems to me that the desire for certainty and for comfortably restricted arenas of inqui
  7. It's interesting that your second comment emphasizes the lack of correlation between measurements and sonics, while your first comment - "How much an individual is willing to pay for diminishing returns" - presumes a fairly smooth and reliable correlation between price and sonics. Personally I have found the reverse - that the price-sonics correlation is weaker and less reliable than the measurement-sonics correlation.
  8. This is an extreme, highly disparaging statement, and such statements require some evidence if they are to be taken seriously and not be viewed as bad forum behavior. So too does the placing of the word reviews in scare-quotes require some explanation or justification if it s not to be considered gratuitous nastiness with no substance behind it. I would encourage anyone reading this thread who does not already have a strong opinion about ASR to visit the site and decide for themselves.
  9. I'll give you a pass on going off-topic since you added that smiley face at the end. 🙂 Seriously, though, for me it's not a matter of trusting or not trusting Amir's listening reports. I just don't care about them because they are of little value to me. He finds DACs that measure well - and even DACs that measure mediocrely - sound pretty much transparent. That's not surprising to me. He finds that underpowered or poorly measuring headphone amps don't sound very good when driving demanding high-impedance headphones. Also not surprising. And he finds that cheap AV receivers whose no
  10. That's a shame since room acoustics are important and their impact on the sound can be demonstrated very easily by both listening and measurements. In fact, room acoustics are one of the strongest areas of agreement among subjectivists and objectivists. Of course, room acoustics do become irrelevant with headphones, and if you are using a stereo system that - as you have said yourself - is akin to headphones with the ear cups pulled away slightly, then room acoustics aren't going to be an issue for you because you're engaged in near-field listening. But your use case is not all
  11. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
  12. This is manifestly untrue, and so we're going to have to agree to disagree.
  13. You don't think you're overgeneralizing about objectivists here? Even AS's favorite "love to hate, narrow-minded, biased" objectivist, Amir over at ASR, routinely investigates component interactions in his tests. He tests DACs using different inputs; he compares RCA vs XLR inputs and outputs; he tests headphone amps with headphones of different impedances; he tries USB galvanic isolators with multiple DACs; he has "rolled"/swapped op amps in multiple pieces of equipment in order to compare the op amps in more than one "test bed"; he has used different Windows drivers to feed his test signals i
  • Create New...