Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(


Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius
thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw
over the strings while they used the speakers?

d


The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers
are working correctly.


Agreed.

The cabinet on the other hand......


....and the sounding-board.


  #82   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a
character of its own that is wholly unrelated to the
normal audio content.


Ah, the lost voices of the blind leading the blind.


  #83   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:14:18 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

Looping is particularly unhelpful - it takes on a
character of its own that is wholly unrelated to the
normal audio content.


Ah, the lost voices of the blind leading the blind.


You obviously don't have any particular relationship to MUSIC, if you
don't understand how distracting a looping trumpet flourish is and how
it turns it into something other than what it is. Even the jingling
sound of keys gains a rhythm that isn't present in the original when a
2 second sample is looped.
  #84   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all Scientists
with the same brush. What I should be saying is "People
with the attitude of Mr Sullivan....... "


Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is that he probably
has a more relevant set of educational and life's experiences than you do,
Gareth.


Education does not necessarily teach you to be objective or open minded.
For that you need to be able to step outside of your head for a while and be
honest about things. But many people are in their subject far too deep and
have too many vested interests in it to be anything near objective about it.


Gareth.


  #85   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:13:51 +0100, Don Pearce
wrote:


I have to sya, though, that I find that systems with genuine differences
tend to sound the same with protracted listening, as my ear adapts to the
new sound and puts it back together the way Inthink it should sound. You
can get used to the most appalling crap if you listen long enough.


Personally I've always found that dissatisfaction only sets in after
protracted listening. At first you want to believe you've made a good
purchase. "Hey, it's not the greatest but...still OK for the price."
You try hard to like it for a couple of weeks but in the end...nope,
it just won't do. Get used to appalling crap? Nope, not me.


  #86   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in
message

Actually Don, you are right. I am tarring all
Scientists with the same brush. What I should be
saying is "People with the attitude of Mr
Sullivan....... "


Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine. His *problem* is
that he probably has a more relevant set of educational
and life's experiences than you do, Gareth.


Education does not necessarily teach you to be objective
or open minded.


There's a form of so-called open-mindedness that amounts to
having holes in your head.

For that you need to be able to step
outside of your head for a while and be honest about
things.


Most people who spout off about things like this really have
nothing of their own to contribute but tired platitudes.

But many people are in their subject far too
deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
anything near objective about it.


That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared
audiophool who has over-invested in equipment, and has to
invent new-age theories to justify his purchases.

The irony is that about 30 years ago when I was working to
invent ABX, DBTs amounted to "thinking outside the box". In
a bizarre way, they still do.


  #87   Report Post  
paul packer
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 09:31:19 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius


Mr. Middius? Oh you mean old George....
  #88   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:26:19 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:

The worst case was the Bosendorfer rooms. The pianos
sounded great but the speakers!!!! ;-(

Speakers and pianos in the same room? What genius
thought that one up? Or did they have blankets to throw
over the strings while they used the speakers?

d


The strings shouldn't vibrate much as long as the dampers
are working correctly.


Agreed.

The cabinet on the other hand......


...and the sounding-board.


Yup.
  #89   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



A konfession from the Krooborg?

Mr. Sullivan's attitude is just fine.


There's your reality check, Gareth. Krooger approves of Sillybot's blather.

His *problem* is that
he probably has a more relevant set of educational and
life's experiences than you do, Gareth.


Teenage "trainees", anyone? ;-)

  #90   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



paul packer said:

And it can work the way
that Mr. Middius


Mr. Middius? Oh you mean old George....


Pucker up when you say that, paulie.



  #91   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mr. **** tries to flush but (surprise!) takes a bath instead.

But many people are in their subject far too
deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
anything near objective about it.


The irony is that about 30 years ago when I first started collecting
and classifying turds, DBTs amounted to "thinking inside the toilet". In
an all-too-familiar way, they still do.


Thank you Mr. Krooborg for sticking to your area of expertiese(tm).

  #92   Report Post  
Gareth Magennis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But many people are in their subject far too
deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
anything near objective about it.


That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared audiophool who has
over-invested in equipment, and has to invent new-age theories to justify
his purchases.




I'd agree that there are such people on both sides of this argument for
sure.



Gareth.


  #93   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Gareth Magennis said to Mr. ****:

But many people are in their subject far too
deep and have too many vested interests in it to be
anything near objective about it.


That would be your typical self-proclaimed golden-eared audiophool who has
over-invested in equipment, and has to invent new-age theories to justify
his purchases.


I'd agree that there are such people on both sides of this argument for
sure.


You're still arguing with a crazy person. Still futile.

  #94   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Gareth Magennis wrote:
And there's more, like the observations that one particle can somehow
affect
the behaviour of another a large distance away. So perhaps it is not
beyond
the realms of fantasy that a particle in the brain can affect a particle
in
a CD player. Who knows, we certainly don't.


Actually, it's firmly in the realm of fantasy.



This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible.


And that's the mindset about science, of someone who doesn't have a clue
what science is. Science is about determining which of the 'possibles'
are likely to be *true*. It does this by carefully collecting evidence
and applying reason to determine which explanation best fits the
evidence.

What evidence would you gather to indicate the likely *truth* of the claim
that thinking about a CD changes a 'particle' in a CD player?
It's not enough to simply assert it might happen. It's certainly not
enough to take a very naive understanding of 'quantum entanglement'
and claim it *might* cause audibly physical changes to a CD.
That's not evidence, it's speculation, with several crucial
steps of reasoning missing.

Current explanations for audible difference have a strong line
of evidence and reason backing them up. Your explanation doesn't.
Why should we consider it as being a 'competitor' for the current
explanations, then? WHy shoudl it be considered *anything more than*
fanciful speculation?

For God's sake Mr Sullivan, if you had a conversation with Christopher
Columbus and tried to explain to him how you talked to someone on the other
side of the world on your mobile phone yesterday, he would probably laugh in
your face. To get him to understand you would have to start with explaining
electricity and then radio. Chances are the only way he could visualise
these sorts of technology would be to think of them as some kind of "magic"
or "spiritual" or "fantasy" and may well have the same attitude as yourself.
Try and think just a little outside the box, please.


(thinking outside the box) ‰* (not thinking)

You are 'thinking outside the box' without thinking about what *is*
known.

Scienctific explanations are always open to revision. But acknowledging
that something *could be* wrong isn't the same as saying we should
*assume* it is.



--

-S
  #95   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.audio.opinion Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 09:30:37 +0000 (UTC), Gareth Magennis wrote:


This attitude illustrates perfectly the difference between the Scientist
mindset and the more open minded one. The Scientist mindset refuses to
believe that things we do not yet understand may be possible. Read again
the above paragraph. You are calling unquestionable logic fantasy.


Was there ever a more backwards piece of reasoning than this? It is the
scientist who not only imagines, but creates the new possible. It is the
religious mindset that dogmnatically refuses to permit forward thinking
beyond what it has been dragged to, kicking and screaming by the scientist.


It's why I suspect Mr. Magennis doesn't really understand what science is.


--

-S


  #96   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Sillybot engages his prayer module.

It's why I suspect Mr. Magennis doesn't really understand what science is.


Your understanding of "science" is rather quaint. You believe reading about
other people's experiments gives you a full understanding of interpreting
sensory reactions. This is the posturing of an unprogrammed robot, not a living,
breathing person.

 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"