|Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.|
Tolstoy: "truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by it ... Dgarretson
Dgarretson writes: heh. relating to continuousness, move ... Cbw723
Dgarretson wrote: this is a very interesting observation. i ... Bryoncunningham
many message boards give you the option to put trolls on ig ... Cbw723
Dgarretson, you are as sharp as a tack! love your response a ... Newbee
Newbee, sorry i was inhospitable. your speculation that the ... Dgarretson
lol! by posting an on-topic discussion on the application ... Cbw723
Meanwhile, back in the on-topic world, i think iíve come up ... Cbw723
Dgarretson Ė thanks for clarifying your view on ďembodiment. ... Bryoncunningham
Cbw, my interpretation of bryon's posts has been that he wan ... Learsfool
A little while back, al suggested substituting another term, ... Bryoncunningham
yes, that is essentially the argument. #1 and #3 are by def ... Cbw723
A fuller extract of ideas from g. holtís audio glossary seem ... Dgarretson
Learsfool wrote: like many people, i have had this experie ... Bryoncunningham
Dgarretson, thanks for the clarification. i actually didn't ... Learsfool
Preference for a particular coloration(s))and the general t ... Mrtennis
Learsfool Ė i appreciate your thanks and iím grateful for yo ... Bryoncunningham
I agree with mrtennis. this discussion is analogous to jugg ... Tvad
Hi bryon - i agree that this has been an interesting debate. ... Learsfool
Learsfool Ė although it is hazardous to argue by proxy, i wi ... Bryoncunningham
I would like to say a few words, not the detractors of neutr ... Bryoncunningham
Bryon, i would like to apologize to you for my acts of hosti ... Newbee
Bryon wrote, "by improving the way you think about thin ... Dgarretson
i second these thoughts, and share these feelings in my own ... Almarg
Hi bryon - nice posts! your second interpretation of the &q ... Learsfool
this is the part i find most puzzling. i realize that ther ... Cbw723
To whip the horse's eyes with one more water analogy, " ... Dgarretson
Learsfool says: by this argument, you also believe that pre ... Cbw723
Cb723 - my vacuum cleaner is very low pressure cleaner. hop ... Kijanki
Newbee, dgarretson, al, and cbw Ė thank you all for your com ... Bryoncunningham
A while ago bryon produced some equations. among them: jus ... Cbw723
Cbw Ė those are excellent observations. taking them one at a ... Bryoncunningham
Hi bryon - i think there is still some misunderstanding here ... Learsfool
Learsfool wrote: learsfool - i understand that you believ ... Bryoncunningham
Hi bryon - interesting questions, and i am sorry i can't tak ... Learsfool
In the english language , better is a subjective term, unles ... Mrtennis
Mrtennis writes: yes, it is. but it also isn't the subject ... Cbw723
Hi cbw: aural memory is very short. when judging the difffe ... Mrtennis
Mr. tennis, you aren't telling us your short memory prevents ... Muralman1
Vince - i have many piano recordings and each of them is dif ... Kijanki
There is much subjectivity involved in making statements of ... Mrtennis
Kijanki, the point i am making is, if you know what a grand ... Muralman1
Vince - yes, i can recognize piano when i hear one (i think) ... Kijanki
Observations: there are some really intelligent people in t ... Entrope
Learsfool - Sorry for the late reply. I've been traveling for the holiday.
To share with you the reasons for the questions I asked you in my previous post:
RE: (1) Do you believe that colorations can be either increased or decreased?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in (a) variability in the degree of coloration for components and systems, and (b) variability in their degree of neutrality, defined as the degree of absence of coloration. As I understand your view, you believe in (a) but not (b).
RE: (2) Do you believe that colorations can be evaluated as to their euphony or "dysphony" by individual listeners?
This was a way of asking whether you believe in individual preferences regarding colorations. I agree with you that no one is likely to answer this question in the negative. It was really a preface to my third question...
RE: (3) Do you believe that judgments about euphony/dysphony have any consistency across multiple listeners?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PREFERENCE. As I understand your view, you believe that agreement about preference exists but its extent is limited to small groups of audiophiles with similar tastes.
RE: (4) Do you believe that what I hear as "red," you hear as "blue"?
This was a way of asking your view on the existence and extent of agreement about PERCEPTION. As I understand your view, you believe that perception across individual listeners is similar but not identical.
Learsfool - These four questions are linked by their mutual relevance to a recurring issue on this thread: How much can audiophiles agree in their judgments about coloration/neutrality? I have expressed the optimistic view that audiophiles often can, and do, agree about these judgments. Other posters, including you, have been more skeptical about the extent of actual or possible agreement.
My current point is that a valid estimation of the amount of agreement requires differentiating agreement about PERCEPTION from agreement about PREFERENCE. That is because, in my view, the amount of agreement about perception is GREATER than the amount of agreement about preference. In addition, I think that perception and preference have sometimes been conflated on this thread, with the result that THE AMOUNT OF DISAGREEMENT AMONG AUDIOPHILES HAS BEEN OVERESTIMATED. To elaborate...
I believe the following about LISTENER PERCEPTION:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener perception decreases.
2. As variability in listener perception decreases, agreement about perception increases.
3. As expertise increases, agreement about perception increases.
In my view, there are many expert listeners* among audiophiles. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS FAIRLY HIGH AMONG AUDIOPHILES.
As I stated in a previous post, in my view, listener expertise can be developed. Because of this, I believe that THE AMOUNT OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PERCEPTION IS EVEN HIGHER.
*An "expert listener" could be contrasted with a "naive listener." This is not really a binary state. Like all expertise, listening expertise is a matter of degree. But, for certain purposes, it is useful to designate some arbitrary level of expertise as a threshold for being an "expert listener."
Regarding LISTENER PREFERENCE, I believe that:
1. As expertise increases, variability in listener preference decreases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than listener perception.
2. As variability in listener preference decreases, agreement about preferences increases.
3. As expertise increases, agreement about preferences increases, but at a much slower and less linear rate than agreement about perception.
In my view, the loose relation between listener expertise and listener preference results in ONLY A MODERATE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ABOUT PREFERENCE. I also believe that variability in listener preference can never be reduced to zero, and therefore agreement about preference can never be complete.
As I hope this shows, differentiating listener perception from listener preference is essential for a valid estimation of how much agreement, actual or possible, exists among audiophiles. I believe that, while preferences are often diverse and sometimes incommensurable, perception is usually comparable and sometimes identical, particularly with the development of expertise.
Bryoncunningham (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread)
Mrtennis wrote: and kijanki wrote: let assume this: i g ... Bryoncunningham
Does anyone posit that in order to enjoy the fruits of liste ... Mrtennis
Bryoncunningham - we have two problems here: first - you be ... Kijanki
Mrtennis and kijanki - i have said many, many times on this ... Bryoncunningham
Bryoncunningham - you're a nice guy and i like reading your ... Kijanki