In Reply to: RE: ASR forums, Toole and Olive. When science creates a religious cult posted by Rich H v2 on March 29, 2022 at 13:24:39:
Now that I think about it I think it had more to do with a philosophical argument over the meaning of "better" the regulars were actually ok with my preference so long as I didn't say that vinyl sounded "better" and acknowledged that digital was "better." I was not having it. I told them that I agree digital media is more accurate but "better" is inherently subjective and a matter of personal preference. So for me vinyl is better. If I remember correctly *that* argument was what did it. I had a lot of ad hominem thrown at me and I am not the sort who turns the other cheek. So I gave as I was given but I never wavered from my point. IMO this was an ego driven display of posturing and ultimately they would tolerate my preference so long as everyone including myself acknowledged that it was an inferior preference. It took them out of their comfort zone. Most who go there and make that argument usually mistakenly claim digital media is less accurate and audibly flawed. That was a comfortable argument for them to dismantle since it was plainly wrong and easy to dismiss without them having to challenge their own belief system. I think the idea that more accurate doesn't necessarily mean "better" took them way out of their comfort zone and they did not have a legitimate rebuttal. Ironically a few of them cited Toole and Olive's speaker research as proof that more accurate =subjectively "better." I really pissed them off when I pointed out that Toole and Olive were advocates of early reflections to enhance speaker sound quality and so in effect they were claiming something that is fact less accurate to the source signal was "better" that really pissed them off
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: ASR forums, Toole and Olive. When science creates a religious cult - Analog Scott 03/29/2214:33:40 03/29/22 (0)