🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 16 May 2001 02:22:42 +0100, Paul D. <media@clara.net> wrote:

>SoUnD-CaRd GuRu "Arny Krueger" wrote:
>
>>> >My viewpoint on the sound quality doesn't come from Arny's site: I
>>> >ditched my Live! after one month because of:
>>
>>> >- Harsh, tinny highs
>>> >- Lackluster sound depth
>>> >- Anemic bass
>>> >- Lack of virtual placement (the damned thing sounded FLAT)
>>
>>> I plugged the Live! into my Gina input and compared the two playing
>>> back wave files ripped from CD.  I just can't agree.. there was a
>>> difference, but nothing like as gross as you suggest here.
>>
>>I think that somewhat depends on the acuity of your hearing.
>
>< Plug for Arny's website deleted >
>
>Excuse me Arny, but does it fuck have anything to do with that.  Your
>link to your blind listening tests is nothing but spam, it's
>irrelevant to my questioning of Roj's subjective comments.  If he had
>just said 'same' or 'different' then maybe it would apply, but he
>didn't.  Roj gave his subjective opinion and stated it "doesn't come
>from Arny's site", leave the guy alone.

One point on sound being subjective:

A sound card or a set of speakers can either reproduce virtual
placement or it cannot.  It can either produce detail in the high end
that is audible or it cannot.  It can either produce warmth and timbre
in the sound or it cannot.  It can either reproduce decay in the sound
properly or it cannot.  These things are audible to anyone and if
someone A-Bs a system they can easily tell the difference, perhaps if
asked to listen to a certain instrument or for a certain sound in the
music they are listening to.

That is most certainly not subjective.

Now I realize most folks don't have the opportunity to listen to the
soundcards using the same speakers in the same environment (a common
thing with stereo equipment  - the showroom) but I did.  That
inconsistency can easily lead to the statement that sound is
subjective.

In my opinion it most certainly is not.

Roj