New visitors to this forum
Posted by: Paul Stephenson on 14 August 2001
This is just one of many emails I receive from new vistors to the forum, it would be a positive move if we we watch out for this and understand. It is not useful or friendly to answer our guests with a dissmissive reply.
I would appreciate your help with this. I do not mean not telling the truth or not giving honest advice, perhaps its just the way we tell it!
[This message was edited by Paul Stephenson on TUESDAY 14 August 2001 at 20:21.]
quote:
I still feel the reference in your head is what we are all listening to.
This brings up one of my pet points. I had a really crappy stereo when I was a teenager, yet I still loved listening to lots of music. I had heard stuff often enough, and had enough experience with live music, that I knew how it "should" sound (or at least how I wanted it to sound), even though I had never heard it that way.
In my stereo quest over the past few years, my first goal was to get a system that could play as well as I heard it in my head. The first system that did it was CDX/82/2*Hi/250/Albions. I had finally attained the perfection that desired. I actually sat on this system for a year without changing it significantly.
So where do you go once you've achieved perfection? 
It's actually taking a long time for my inner expectations to change. My current system is far better, and each time I listen to it, I'm surprised that it sounds better than I can imagine. Maybe I'll eventually acclimatize myself to it, but in the meantime I'm enjoying the frequent surprises.
Ultimately, I've learned that inner expectations are not enough of a reference against which to judge stereos. We must have more objective measurements and gauges.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
quote:
Music is all about emotion, unless one's going to analyse technique and skill in the manner of an academic.
I'm a musician, and I like analysing the execution, along with appreciating the emotional intent. Otherwise, I'm throwing away half of the experience.
quote:
Accuracy and precision are the same in my dictionary
They're different things in the world of science and engineering. Accuracy is whether it's "right". Precision is how close your answer is to the real "right". A 32.5/SNAPS/110 is "fun", as is a 52/Super/500. Claiming that they're both "fun" is accurate, but it's imprecise to grossly equate them without finely distinguishing their different performances.
quote:
the best Hi-Fi upgrade I've ever done involved doing what Bill Clinton didn't
Say no more, as I empathize completely.
quote:
If you enjoy what you're listening to that's it. If you're comparing and you enjoy A more than B then that's it too! It's very simple.
Simple... yes. But it's also a form of ignorance. If I hear something that I like, I'm not one to blithely appreciate it without wanting to know if there's something better. Once I know the boundaries, I can stake my claim. I want to make an informed decision, and that decision must be based upon criteria, qualitative comparisons, etc.
I'm anaylitical by nature. My mother had a sign in her kitchen stating "Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved". I couldn't disagree more!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
quote:
There are others here on the forum, however, that think listening skills are fully developed while in the womb.
If you mean the "skills" needed to listen to, appreciate and enjoy music then you're right - I'm close to believing that because I'm unaware of ever having had to learn to appreciate or listen to music in any way.
As Andy said:
quote:
If it makes you feel good, happy, sad, joyous, tingly, tearful etc. it's working.
I couldn't agree more. In my experience, people who listen to a lot of live music but don't own hi-fi systems seem to find it very easy to hear the difference between different components/systems. They just listen to the music, react to it and judge the system accordingly.
If, however, you [Mike] mean the skills needed to choose a system then that's a good subject for debate!
Mike:
quote:
Unfortunately this measurement, although it's accurate, has no precision. It's also highly impacted by your current state of mind.
If I may say so, to claim that this method of listening has NO precision is something of an exaggeration. I agree there can be a problem, and using "more objective" criteria - i.e. musical criteria (presumably) - can be useful in such cases. Unfortunately, choosing the wrong musical criteria can lead to one choosing the wrong system. For example, if I had chosen my system solely using the forum favourite, "PR&T", I could easily have ended up with a system that was almost worthless to me. I prefer "E3T" (Expression, Timbre, Time and Tune), which better reflects my own priorities (in no particular order)and dispenses with what, to me, is the unnecessarily high precision and low accuracy (as Mike might put it) of PR&T.
After being a reluctant hi-fi nut for twenty years, I think I've finally reached what is probably my final listening strategy for upgrading. I don't claim that everyone else should adopt the same strategy but those who have made upgrading mistakes in the past - and keep making them - might find it worth trying:
The most important part of my strategy is something my dealer has recommended for years but which I never accepted until recently:
In A/B comparisons listen to several short extracts of no more than two minutes each on system A, and then listen to them on system B.
On the face of it, this seems further from normal listening than necessary, especially with "classical" music, but it works for me. I seem to better remember both emotional and musical differences with several short extracts than with a few long pieces. Also, using several extracts enables one to identify extracts that are particularly good at accentuating the differences for further listening if necessary.
--Jeremy
PS for anyone who didn't understand Mike's explanation of the difference between accuracy and precision:
Budado is a very precise but highly inaccurate spelling of the word potato, whereas "potat followed either by oh or oe" is a more accurate but less precise spelling. 
[This message was edited by Sproggle on FRIDAY 31 August 2001 at 00:54.]
[This message was edited by Sproggle on FRIDAY 31 August 2001 at 00:54.]
I see that my original description was a touch misleading. A better definition might be:
Accuracy - Is the measurement close to being right?
Precision - Are all your measurements consistently similar (whether they're right or not)?
In the context of judging stereos, deciding whether a given system moves you emotionally might be an accurate measurement. (i.e. You now that the is generally fun or boring). However, your ability to feel the emotion from the stereo will vary greatly from day to day, because of your initial emotional state (i.e. very little precision).
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on FRIDAY 31 August 2001 at 01:42.]
you've lost me now. to me emotion is part of the musical message?? 
enjoy
ken
quote:
I'm a musician, and I like analysing the execution, along with appreciating the emotional intent. Otherwise, I'm throwing away half of the experience.
As a frustrated musician (read: crap!) I like to be able to hear the effect of the execution and technique, but couldn't give a s**t about it unless it communicates the emotional intent. If the technique is portrayed AND the musician can use that to communicate his message all well and good.
The technique without the message is a waste of time, and would be reflected in the music that I listen to regualarly. I've heard plenty of technically competent musicians that would send me to sleep.
quote:
They're different things in the world of science and engineering. Accuracy is whether it's "right". Precision is how close your answer is to the real "right"
As an engineer I'd have to agree, but I don't use the same analytical skills I use in my daily employement when listening to music.
That really is my whole point. When it comes to music I only care about the effect that it has on me and my moods and emotions. I don't care whether it's accurate or precise, effect is all.
I'm happy to accept that others view things differently, and have no problem with that, but I would say, in my defence, that I've never been unhappy with any of the systems that I've owned once I 'measured' using this rule.
I can always appreciate better, I'd love a CDSII, having heard Alex S's recently, but it doesn't immediately make my CD5 unlistenable, since it can communicate the bits of the music I care about.
It's almost definitely a personality thing, you have an interest for example in soundstage. I can appreciate that, as a garnish to the musical message, but I don't feel it is in anyway fundamental, since it doesn't have any effect on the communicability of the emotional content of music. Whether the musician sits on the toilet or in a concert hall doesn't matter to me, although you could argue in this case it's part of a message
quote:
Simple... yes. But it's also a form of ignorance
You really have a way with words, Mike, the phrase above fits nicely with the title of this thread 
Ignorance is bliss for some - and certainly inexpensive
quote:
I'm anaylitical by nature
Reading many of my technical contributions to this forum I'm much the same, but music is my means of switching off from that activity, I believe that's where we differ.
Andy.
P.S. Have you ever seen the film 'Dead Poets Society' with Robin Williams. You remind me of the teacher who feels poetry can be 'measured' using graphs and science. Me, I'm the Robin Williams character. Great film BTW, if you haven't seen it.
quote:
I like to be able to hear the effect of the execution and technique, but couldn't give a s**t about it unless it communicates the emotional intent.
Agreed. The emotion is most important, and without that technique is irrelevant. However, I want both. (Call me greedy. )
quote:
you have an interest for example in soundstage.
I'm should stop using the word "soundstage", and use "palpability" instead. If a system is doing things right, then the sounds will coalesce into something that seems "real", and not something that's being spit out of speakers. Lots of systems create a seamless stereo image, but they still sound mechanical and boxy. If you've ever heard "proper" soundstage in conjuction with good PRaT, etc., then you'll now how special it is. I won't settle for less. (There I go being greedy again. 
)
quote:
[re: ignorance] You really have a way with words, Mike, the phrase above fits nicely with the title of this thread
Why is it that people always infer insult in the word "ignorance". It's simply "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." BTW, in my book ignorance is not bliss; it's one of the most problematic (perhaps even "evil") concepts that I know. Purposefully condoning and promoting ignorance (a.k.a. close-mindedness) is another one of those things that I abhor.
quote:
Reading many of my technical contributions to this forum I'm much the same [i.e. analytical], but music is my means of switching off from that activity, I believe that's where we differ.
As I've already mentioned, I'm not usually very emotional. However, I feel much more when listening to music. While I'm doing that, I see no need to turn off my analytical side. You don't have to have one or the other. I want it all! (Is there an echo in here? 
)
"Dead Poets Society" is a great film, but it's also a tragedy. It demonstrates what can happen when people are ignorant.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
quote:
"Dead Poets Society" is a load of sentimental drivel, and its got Robin Williams in it trying to serious. The only thing worse than that is Robin Williams trying to be funny.
Not a big fan of RW then?
Along with 'The Cook, The Thief, his Wife and her Lover' it's one of my favourite films of all time.
I'm probably just a soppy old git
quote:
Why is it that people always infer insult in the word "ignorance". It's simply "The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed." BTW, in my book ignorance is not bliss; it's one of the most problematic (perhaps even "evil") concepts that I know. Purposefully condoning and promoting ignorance (a.k.a. close-mindedness) is another one of those things that I abhor.
If you don't understand why some people may be offended at being called any of the definitions you give for ignorance, then I guess there's no hope.
I base all my opinions on personal experience, never from the perspective of ignorance. If I don't know / understand something I'll admit it.
In my case I'm aware of the things I'm 'missing' I just don't see them as important to the musical message. If being better informed, educated or aware lets me enjoy music more then I would pursue it with the attention to detail I reserve for my other academic pursuits. I need some convincing on that score.
I may be more easily satisfied than some, I don't have any problem with admitting that all.
But never accuse me of ignorance, or I will get angry
Andy.
quote:
Is a load of pretentious, art-house, self-indulgent twaddle, (tortologous or what?),
What the hell is that? Tautologous? Maybe. Torturous? Also a possibility. But tortologous? That's unpossible, mate
Joe
quote:
If you don't understand why some people may be offended at being called any of the definitions you give for ignorance, then I guess there's no hope.
Everyone one is ignorant in some fashion or another. Being offended by that fact means you're not being honest with yourself. Being aware, yet purposefully disregarding it is another thing altogether. I might even go so far as to condone it. However, suggesting that PRaT is all anyone needs is shortsighted and closeminded, as is purporting that soundstage is a "bad" thing. (BTW, I'm not aiming this at you in particular, Andrew.)
Alex said:
quote:
I wrote that phrase extremely slowly whilst eating a piece of lettuce.
That was wonderful, Alex!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
--Jeremy
quote:
We're allowed to call you ignorant as much as we like, and you won't be offended - is that right?
I've been called worse, without running home crying to mommy.
Nigel said:
quote:
ignorance has nothing to do with being close-minded
You misunderstood, although I must admit that my statement wasn't entirely lucid. I said ["Purposefully condoning and promoting ignorance (a.k.a. close-mindedness)". I'm implying that "close-mindeness" is very similar to (albeit not quite the same as) "purposefully condoning and promoting ignorance".
In fact, the former often causes the latter. For example: "I aint havin' any of my child'en lernin' that ev'lution in skool." Or how about: "Soundstage detracts from important musical aspects like PRaT, and I strongly dissaude you from striving for it in your system." Therefore, all dedicated Flat-Earthers are close-minded and ig'nert.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
quote:
However, suggesting that PRaT is all anyone needs is shortsighted and closeminded, as is purporting that soundstage is a "bad" thing. (BTW, I'm not aiming this at you in particular, Andrew.)
I know you're not, since I can actually appreciate it. My brothers system, now he has the Royd Doublets, creates a palpability (good word) that is little short of stunning. It's just I don't need it personally, as part of my musical equation. I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid it though, providing I still get the other bits I need.
quote:
We're allowed to call you ignorant as much as we like, and you won't be offended - is that right?
I think I may have seen the light on this during my journey home tonight, is it just a cultural thing?
I know that if I were to call just about anyone in the UK ignorant, that I didn't know VERY well, they would take offence. Maybe it's OK in Ontari-ari-ario?
Were a sensitive bunch you know
Andy.
quote:
is it just a cultural thing?
Possibly, although I think you'll find people offended on both sides of the pond. To me, "ignorant" is merely a statement of fact. (e.g. ignorant of the ways of the world) Rather than saying that you're bad, it's merely stating a limitation. Unfortunately, it's used negatively so often, that it's difficult to use without having it incorrectly interpreted. Sadly, people are ignorant of its real meaning.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
quote:
I'm sure you won't mind me pointing out that your frequent and lengthy comments on philosophical, logical and theological ideas betray a profound and absolute ignorance of those subjects.
Profound? Perhaps. Absolute? Impossible!
I'm just bouncing around ideas, amused at how they feel inside my head. I'm tickling my brain, and it's giggling like a silly schoolgirl.
quote:
Your references to "political correctness" also show a complete ignorance of the origin and use of that term by the political right as a means of dismissing any vaguely liberal ideas without having to argue them on their merits.
As I've stated before, my problem is with false niceties. Political Correctness (at least the way the phrase is applied in popular culture) is certainly related. The history of the phrase was never an issue; I merely dislike the thing it represents to most people today.
quote:
You also seem to be displaying a fairly serious level of ignorance as to how to communicate with a generally intelligent group without offending just about all of them.
I suppose that's possible (and perhaps even likely). I'm merely expressing ideas, responding to statements, "tickling my schoolgirl brain", and generally trying to keep myself entertained. I have to admit, though, that I'm getting entirely bored with this whole discourse.
BTW, I appreciate your candor, even though you've obviously phrased it very strongly in an attempt to get my attention. Since you seem so certain of my inability to communicate without offending the intelligentsia, perhaps you could give me a few pointers. (I know the first one: Shut Up! )
Ok, that's it. I'm done on this thread. Bye!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-