Puzzling results with ATC SCM50ASLT loudspeakers vs. previous system
- Thread starter Matthew J
- Start date
More the former than the latter. As the term is widely if somewhat wrongly used, what must necessarily be the subjective analysis of very limited data is when combined with unfounded assumptions about technology declared the "objective" path (to audibly middling results) while the objective (and widely patterned, cross-correlated, and technically-informed) analysis, that being what ears and hearing and audio are for, interestingly, is despite its frequently superior results, somehow inferior to it.
Therefore the Objective path has inadequate guardrails preventing it making assertions not in real use evidence, while the Subjective path is evidently quite capable of such excellence.
For it to stand objectivist denialism is the natural rhetorical and philosophical outcome of this conundrum.
That would be your best recourse.
tuga
Legal Alien
Dipoles have different requirements as do omnis.
S-Man
StrivingON
Are you practicing for “Just a Minute”?
PS repetition of “objective “
PPS it helps is it’s funny
gez
pfm Member
The fallacy that you're clearing engaging in, is the belief that your hearing and perception is actually capable of determining the accuracy of a system. You clearly appear to be of the belief that if your ears/brain tell you "it sounds right" the system must therefore be "accurate". As I stated, the objective accuracy of a replay system (and sorry to burst your delusion but such a thing is absolutely and empirically verifyable totally independently of your belief system or perception), is nothing to do with what an individual will prefer. I really struggle to understand why people feel so threatened by such statements. The summer season of the year are objectively defined as being the warmer/hotter days of the year, usually with the longest hours of daylight etc, yet you don't hear people who prefer winter months contesting that fact. So why is it that people who are firm in the belief that they prefer the way their system sounds to all others are so offended if it's pointed out that their system is less accurate than other systems? Particularly when the person pointing it out is doing so in a totally neutral topic and not calling them a fool or any other such slurs for doing so?
By the way, your use of "flowery" prose in your replies is failing completely to pursuade me that you're somehow highly intelligent and so I am somehow clearly a fool. We're discussing audio systems not putting on a performance of Shakespear or Chaucer.
Tigerjones
Bagpuss
Having read this thread, probably burning them.
With the front baffles about 1.2m from the front wall and about 2.2m apart, toed-in to fire over my shoulders.
The cabinets burned well and the drive units are stuffed into the parcel shelf of my car, with an 80w Clarion amp and a Pye bass tube from Argos in the boot
It must be AI? 'Pretentious hi-fi critic, probably only listens to classical & reads Shakespeare'
I’m going to be brutally honest,if you’re first impression was that you don’t like them,stick with it,sell and move on,just because they’re a forum fave doesn’t mean you have to like them.
I say that as a Atc owner,who demoed far too many before I found my poison,it came down to 40s and focal kanta 2s,I literally got a headache off the focal,yet can really understand why someone else would have it the opposite way around.
Stick your old setup on and if it still weaves musical magic that would tell me what to do!
I'm not aware of a perception-is-moot fallacy but for what it's worth, I'm also not aware that accuracy has ever been the outcome of any of a million combinations of kit. Because obviously it hasn't been. At the same time, humans have been tinkering for effect since humans began. You may want to reformulate what you think you're on about there too.
Again; nope. Kindly don't project because it's too much of a tell that we are dealing with the sort of gatekeeping audiophile I've been alluding to for a few pages. I'm also not sure what an "ears/brain" reduction is but just like you pepper your steak, I modify and listen to my system. I believe that's still allowed. So far.
Given that no system conceived by man has ever once reproduced the live sound, wrong. But we'll stipulate that you're some form of absolutist whose yardsticks believe they have so there it is.
I am genuinely curious where this System is kept.
You misspelled curious. Curious that one can actually put that forward and believe it.
Because that "pointing out" is painfully obvious bollocks, technically, philosophically, rhetorically, perceptively. You haven't these magic yardsticks. They do not exist.
We shall stipulate that you very much enjoy your style. Fallacies and all.
And again.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Accuracy in audio, is a misnomer. Accurate to what, a live performance in a specific location experienced from a specific seat in the venue? Accurate to what's heard in the studio through via the speakers on the mixing desk? From the seat at the control desk in the mastering studio?
As the last hand in the tiller in production I guess it's the mastering engineer's experience that were trying to match, but we have no way of knowing what that was so we have to settle for accurate to the signal on the recorded media as distributed.
Now there's a myriad of metrics for measuring that accurately, none of which the ear is capable of doing. All the listener can say is whether they like/prefer the outcome.
Ears aren't a measuring device, and any claim otherwise is just hyperbole. The statement "this sounds more accurate to me" is utterly meaningless.
As the last hand in the tiller in production I guess it's the mastering engineer's experience that were trying to match, but we have no way of knowing what that was so we have to settle for accurate to the signal on the recorded media as distributed.
Now there's a myriad of metrics for measuring that accurately, none of which the ear is capable of doing. All the listener can say is whether they like/prefer the outcome.
Ears aren't a measuring device, and any claim otherwise is just hyperbole. The statement "this sounds more accurate to me" is utterly meaningless.
TheFlash
Reiki Audio
As far as I’m concerned, everything other than this is about personal preference.
I get grumpy when people suggest/assert/insist that objectively more accurate simply must equate to “better”. And/or get all back-to-its-linguistic-roots-y about “hifi” being short for high fidelity and insist that no-one can call themselves an audiophile or hifi enthusiast if they don’t ruthlessly pursue this accuracy.
Fatmarley
"It appears my intelligence circuits have melted"
Agree. I wrote a long post about this subject, read it back, and nearly fell asleep, so deleted it.
camverton
pfm Member
I don’t get too worried about accuracy per se as what I’m after is a realistic illusion of the original performance, or a similar one which I have in my memory. What the recording engineer heard in his studio with monitors, very different to the speakers I use to enjoy music, is largely irrelevant to me.
In simple terms, if I’m convinced that the hifi brings the music into my home it doesn’t really matter whether someone else considers the sound inaccurate. It’s all an illusion so just go with what works for us each as individuals.
Our ears or hearing, of course, is fairly hopeless as a “measuring” device as it varies so much from one person to another. On the other hand our ears and hearing are superb for determining what works for us individually.
As for ATC speakers I found the mid range sound particularly convincing albeit the presentation didn’t go quite far enough to convince me, if I closed my eyes, that the musician was performing in front of me. Not many speakers can pull that trick off, ime, and what works for me doesn’t necessarily work for others.
Yes the expression “that sounds more accurate to me” may be meaningless if taken literally but if the person is saying “that sounds (to me) just like the original” than it is quite reasonable.