Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |