SOUND ON SOUND

[Mike Stranks]

I sense a bit of arrogance and perhaps snobbishness when folks claim that top end gear is provably better than mid range.

I will grant that the low end stuff can be terrible by most anybodys standards.

But can anybody *prove* that high end gear is better and not merely different?

I think you're missing the point...

If you've heard really good preamplifiers with an excellent S/N ratio and everything else that goes with them then when you then hear preamps with a less impressive performance you are far more conscious of their shortcomings compared to the 'better-specced' pres. Such is life.

An example from today... Yesterday I shot some video using a radio mic system. Not expensive but uber-portable and easy to use. As far as I was concerned it had some significant failings: poor noise floor and constant micro dropouts. All my other radio mic gear comes from higher up the food-chain. I was moaning to my wife about this earlier today and she said, "But will anyone but you notice?" Of course the answer was "Probably not, but I do!"

When you're accustomed to using top-quality gear you're more likely to perceive issues and inadequacies with more modest gear. Does that mean it's no good? Of course not - unless it's performance is not fit for purpose. Most of those here who are accustomed to using good gear are too mature to rubbish more modest stuff, but it doesn't stop them buying top-quality gear if they can afford it.

[Watchmaker]

I appreciate the dialectic being focused on *proof*.

That being the case we can start with Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" although Newton famously did some experiments on where sight occurred. Did we see the outside world or did we process datum, or both? Where in the cognitive process did perception occur? He stuck bodkins in his eyes and closed himself up in closets for days on end trying to sort that out.

Then again, Jung, I think, has some incredibly interesting dialogues about the idea of percepts, apprehension and comprehension all being essentially catalysts for a priori knowledge which the ego perceives as truth.

We can approach the riddle from a physics perspective too as Schoedinger's cat eloquently poses a good thought experiment about states of matter being altered through - and only coming into existence because of - observation.

And again, in common law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. As you accuse snobbery, elitism whilst retreating to the redolent redoubt of doubt, I suggest the burden is on you to prove that quality is entirely subjective.

[hobbyist]

I sense a bit of arrogance and perhaps snobbishness when folks claim that top end gear is provably better than mid range.

I will grant that the low end stuff can be terrible by most anybodys standards.

But can anybody *prove* that high end gear is better and not merely different?

I think you're missing the point...

If you've heard really good preamplifiers with an excellent S/N ratio and everything else that goes with them then when you then hear preamps with a less impressive performance you are far more conscious of their shortcomings compared to the 'better-specced' pres. Such is life.

An example from today... Yesterday I shot some video using a radio mic system. Not expensive but uber-portable and easy to use. As far as I was concerned it had some significant failings: poor noise floor and constant micro dropouts. All my other radio mic gear comes from higher up the food-chain. I was moaning to my wife about this earlier today and she said, "But will anyone but you notice?" Of course the answer was "Probably not, but I do!"

When you're accustomed to using top-quality gear you're more likely to perceive issues and inadequacies with more modest gear. Does that mean it's no good? Of course not - unless it's performance is not fit for purpose. Most of those here who are accustomed to using good gear are too mature to rubbish more modest stuff, but it doesn't stop them buying top-quality gear if they can afford it.

It seems like it comes down to fit for what purpose to who? And if they can't afford the very 'best' whatever that is then they should give up and do something else.

And just because you perceive differences how do you prove that one is better and not merely different?

[hobbyist]

I appreciate the dialectic being focused on *proof*.

That being the case we can start with Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation" although Newton famously did some experiments on where sight occurred. Did we see the outside world or did we process datum, or both? Where in the cognitive process did perception occur? He stuck bodkins in his eyes and closed himself up in closets for days on end trying to sort that out.

Then again, Jung, I think, has some incredibly interesting dialogues about the idea of percepts, apprehension and comprehension all being essentially catalysts for a priori knowledge which the ego perceives as truth.

We can approach the riddle from a physics perspective too as Schoedinger's cat eloquently poses a good thought experiment about states of matter being altered through - and only coming into existence because of - observation.

And again, in common law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. As you accuse snobbery, elitism whilst retreating to the redolent redoubt of doubt, I suggest the burden is on you to prove that quality is entirely subjective.

Too philosophical for me. I am a mathematician and deal with facts and logic.

How do you prove that item A is better than item B if both are considered to be the 'best' by various 'experts'.

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

And I say that it is a rare high end device that can be proven to be better than a typical mid range device. Although admittedly if you go low enough that is possible. But you cannot go high enough to beat everything on the high end.

[Mike Stranks]

And just because you perceive differences how do you prove that one is better and not merely different?

Really?

Technical quality. So... better S/N ratio, better frequency response, flatter frequency response, less harmonic distortion etc etc etc.

I do not have 'golden ears' - 'silver-plated' at best - but even I can spot hissy preamps, preamps with less headroom, mics that produce a sound you could slice bread with, radio mic systems that sound like Donald Duck with laryngitis etc etc etc.

We're not talking esoteric audiophile $500 cables here or subjective terms like 'warmer'. Hard facts about electronic performance.

[hobbyist]

And just because you perceive differences how do you prove that one is better and not merely different?

Really?

Technical quality. So... better S/N ratio, better frequency response, flatter frequency response, less harmonic distortion etc etc etc.

I do not have 'golden ears' - 'silver-plated' at best - but even I can spot hissy preamps, preamps with less headroom, mics that produce a sound you could slice bread with, radio mic systems that sound like Donald Duck with laryngitis etc etc etc.

We're not talking esoteric audiophile $500 cables here or subjective terms like 'warmer'. Hard facts about electronic performance.

Yes BUT!........

A has best s/n 2nd distortion 3rd BW yada yada ... nth factor
B has 2nd best s/n 3rd best distortion yada yada ...
repeat for all

now every device is good on one technical measure but you cannot say any of them is best unless you can say one parameter rules and we dont need any of the other specs

hissy preamps are not even midrange

if you have enough headroom (and all digital has way too much) do you need more

who is to say slicing bread isnt better than the mikes you prefer
who gets to be the arbiter of such subjective items

systems with laryngitis are not even mid range

we are talking about the mid and upper range where almost everything is identical technically and the real difference is preference for other features, color, ease of use, prestige factor, and even cost for us mere mortals.

you can say those devices are different
you can prefer one to another
but there is no logical way to say any of them is best or even better

[Watchmaker]

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

Show me the equation.

[hobbyist]

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

Show me the equation.

ROTFLMAO

there is no equation. It is a theorem.

[Dave B]

Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

[blinddrew]

It seems like it comes down to fit for what purpose to who? And if they can't afford the very 'best' whatever that is then they should give up and do something else.

I've spent a lot of time on this forum over the last few years, too much some would say, but I can't recall anyone seriously expressing anything like that sentiment on here.
If this is the idea you're railing against then you're in the wrong place.

Fundamentally there is no requirement for anyone to prove anything, to you or to anyone else. People buy and use the tools that work for them, that's pretty much the end of the story.

[blinddrew]

Too philosophical for me. I am a mathematician and deal with facts and logic.

Maybe that's not the right toolkit for artistic decisions.

[Watchmaker]

I'm enjoying this conversation.


A- posit unplausible
B- rebut
C- rebut
A- restate unplausible, ad hominem
D- rebut
B- restate
A- ad hominem

Ad naseum

*theorem: a theorem is a logical consequence of axioms, i.e a theory, thesis or hypothesis, ergo, not a truth but a self substantiated assumption. Hard to argue that a theorem is equivalent to a fact, although they are useful to support constructs, they should not be confused with truths.

[Watchmaker]

and if a fact is, in isolation, not a truth, then what is it's value absent context? :D

I grew up in a family of mathematicians and can run this dog all day :-)

[Mike Stranks]

I'm outta this pointless 'Windmills of Your Mind' vortex...

It's not a 'better' preamp/microphone/radio-system... you just think it is... :headbang:

[forumuser840717]

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

Show me the equation.

ROTFLMAO

there is no equation. It is a theorem.

See what you said above (I've emboldened it for you as a hint).

You said they "proved a theorem". That suggests quite strongly that you have not only a theorem but a proof.

If you have a proof of this theorem you should be able to detail both the theorem itself and the proof - one being of little use without the other.

So do you have a proof or have you just postulated a thoerem without proving it.?

Or are you just trying, troll-like, to divert and obfuscate a discussion in which you haven't a valid argument?

[hobbyist]

My math class in graduate school at uni proved a theorem that there is no best. There is no logical way to prove that A is better than B is better than C ....

So the ball is back in your court. Mathematicians have proven that you cannot logically show that one high end device is better than another one in general; although there may be some devices where this could be true is it definitely proven false for A/DA converters.

Show me the equation.

ROTFLMAO

there is no equation. It is a theorem.

See what you said above (I've emboldened it for you as a hint).

You said they "proved a theorem". That suggests quite strongly that you have not only a theorem but a proof.

If you have a proof of this theorem you should be able to detail both the theorem itself and the proof - one being of little use without the other.

So do you have a proof or have you just postulated a thoerem without proving it.?

Or are you just trying, troll-like, to divert and obfuscate a discussion in which you haven't a valid argument?

I outlined the essence of the proof earlier. Do you really want the gory details? Could you understand them if I did it?

Tell me what uni your phd was from and the topic you wrote on and I will find you a proof if you cant google it.

[Hugh Robjohns]

'Hobbiest' , I'm rapidly losing patience with your disturbing posting behaviour which has become tediously argumentative and utterly pointless. Your constant negativity and disrepectful arrogance is not endearing, and your posts have offered nothing at all of value or substance to the forum. To be blunt, I'm struggling to find a reason not to ban you... again... But permanently this time. But it's late and I'm tired, so rather than act in haste I'll discuss with my colleagues tomorrow.

H

[Urthlupe]

TBH, entertaining as it is (for maybe a minute), I’m amazed you fellas are falling for this....

Loopy

[hobbyist]

'Hobbiest' , I'm rapidly losing patience with your disturbing posting behaviour which has become tediously argumentative and utterly pointless. Your constant negativity and disrepectful arrogance is not endearing, and your posts have offered nothing at all of value or substance to the forum. To be blunt, I'm struggling to find a reason not to ban you... again... But permanently this time. But it's late and I'm tired, so rather than act in haste I'll discuss with my colleagues tomorrow.

H

My apologies.

I should never have tried to use logic with artistes.

[Urthlupe]

:bouncy:

‘How does one know that one is really better than the other - logician or artiste’.

Loopy