[[email protected]]

On Oct 23, 3:35�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
improves the sound stage in every way.

That would be an example of proof by assertion.
No it's merely an observation.

In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.

E = MC squared is an observation.

I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC
squared well before it was ever observed.


All preferences are observations.

Not really. Preferences are subjective evaluations. They may be based
on observation. They may be based on other things like prejudice. But
they are not really an observation.


All facts are observations.

Not at all. we have a whole world of mathematical facts and linguistic
facts that are anything but observations.

Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound
stage is due to better channel balanced which may be
achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right.
I'm just reporting what I did and the results.

But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're
going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your
beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more.

That is true. I could be mistaken. Or I could be giving a personal
opinion on the quality of the soundstage which may not jive with other
peoples' qualitative opinions. That is why I assert my observations
based on listening as my observations based on listening. Nothing more
nothing less.


However, given the basic poor performance of the LP
format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical
maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim.
Poor performance?

Call it an observation.

I will call it the same thing I called it for myself and I call it
for all others. It is your "subjective evaluation. It may be based on
observation. It may be based on other things like prejudice. but it is
not really an observation."


That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance.

In the end we have two extreme cases.

In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever
flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for
excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly
indistinguishable from the original live performance.

I completely disagree with this premise. it is yet another case of
faulty logic. 9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many
possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible,
therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two
possibilities). Ultimately when one talks about "excellence" there is
at least one leap from the objective world to the world of pure
subjectivity. One can objectively say something is bigger than another
or faster than another or hotter than another etc. But as soon as you
say something is "better" then you have to have made a subjective
choice of a reference by which you measure. You have picked two out of
a nearly unlimited number of possible goals and arbitrarily claimed
that they are extremes. One of them simply isn't a point of reference
at all. The other is merely one of many possible points of reference.
On a practical level you have cited a point of reference/goal a "sonic
performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the
original live performance." that is simply not available as a
practical reference for audiophiles like myself who are simply looking
to get the best sound out of their favorite commercial recordings.


In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back
to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo
is all about just 4 electrical signals. �

If one's goal is to get "sonic performance that is completely and
utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance." one can
not possibly cut to the half way point of the stereo chain and now
call that the reference. The electrical signals you refer to are in
fact not the same as the "original live performance." Not even close.
The original live performance was a complex series of sound waves that
took place in a three dimensional space. These signals you speak of
are nothing more than a couple one dimensional electrical waves. They
are anything but the same as the original performance. Once the
original perfomance happens it is lost. If *you* wish to use an
electrical signal as a point of reference by which to judge excellence
that is a choice you get to make. I have no problem with *your*
aesthetic goals. But make no mistake about it, you have just abandoned
your reference of the "original performance" and put an intermediate
electrical signal with all the baggage it carries from the inherent
colorations of the hardware, the inherent limitations of stereo
recording and playback and most significantly all the aesthetic
choices made by the recording engineer in place of the "original
perfomance" as your reference. Now this is a choice any audiophile may
make. But it would be a profound mistake to believe these two points
of reference are interchangable or indistinguishable. They are not.