One has to keep an open mind and Byron and Al do so in such a refreshingly open manner. Thanks to the both of you for your keen insights and wordsmith.
To the naysayers out there that theorize that engineers 'know' what they build and what we hear is what they intended doesn't cover all the bases. Isn't there a predictive theory that can be proven over and over without having all the facts and yet it can be demonstrated over and over again? Associated responses can be accurately predicted leading to that accompanying something else that yet has to be proven but is there, nonetheless. We just don't know how to measure it with what we now have. Not only can we predict it, but we can eliminate it by changing the associated responses and we don't have the answer or the ability to identify it. But it is there, lying in wait. mocking us until we know its name. |
Some people can derive satisfaction from a transistor radio and decry even a rudimentary attempt at better sound for their music listening pleasure. But to separate sound from music and the gear its played on isn't a valid argument, at least to me, as I find it fun and rewarding, treating it as a whole.
It would be akin to saying the food you eat is good enough, nutritionally, so don't pay attention to the taste as long as you have good silverware. |
It looks like we have consensus:
microwave sound effects are something we can all do without.:) |
Eve should have taken another bite of the apple so everything hence would be certain. |
Fascinating.
I always thought that it was a theory but as long ago as 1919 there was proof that light does bend due to strong gravitational forces.
I need a new rock to live under. One with a better view. |
Bryon,
I just had to mention that I now understand, anew, and appreciate your "those who confuse the Obscure with the Profound" mini treatise. It ties up lots of theories (conspiratorial and the like) that permeate our lives. And I do believe it is intentional, as it works. Greenspan did it in order to rise to the incompetent level he achieved and it's used throughout the art world in order to keep real art out. Pick any endeavor and you'll see it being done, to some degree. The intensity goes up as the value of what's being sold rises. The correlation cannot be denied.
Nice touch.
It's not my intention to appear mean spirited but hopefully this does tie things up.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Bryon,
Your 'pigtails' have been used by others here in different forms. Anything from a homemade wire type collector to various retail products that claim to have a beneficial effect. I use a Dakiom device in the same manner. I don't believe it is made in the same way as what you use. It was recommended by a fellow listener at my place and all three of us heard an immediate improvement. It tamed a bright high end tendency and seemed to reduce, overall, noise that I hadn't noticed before. A sort of calming effect. Hard to describe but discernible each and every time it was taken out and reinserted.
Now that was with an older integrated that I have packed away and just for the heck of it, I tried it on my present unit and the effect wasn't anywhere near as pronounced but it was there. My Burson PI-160 is a better made unit than the Classic 6.1 so that may be the reason. I can't really say.
It's hard to describe magic when you don't know how the trick is done.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I wonder what Hayakawa would say about all of this if he were still alive.
It would probably go something like this:
The symbol is NOT the thing symbolized.
The map is NOT the territory.
The word is NOT the thing.
Classification, symbols, truth, context, inferences, judgement, etc. They all mean something different to each of us and they shouldn't. |
Byron,
Very well put. Hyakawa would have smiled.
You succinctly made it clear, to everyone here, what you meant by your use of the word. Personal agendas can give rise to tendencies to wander off the path.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Not to further derail this thread but in keeping with my past comment, this tactic of derailment is commonly used in all manner of conversation when nothing can be added to said conversation, or when opinions differ not due to the topic, but to a belief. Emotion then takes over and semantics are used to further that belief (unfounded as it is).
Admonishing someone to stay on point (which I've gotten used to doing in my daily life) can be really taxing but when someone knows I'm going to deploy that tactic, they tend to stay on topic or simply move on. In fact, those around me appreciate it all the more and use it themselves. It's a learning process.
Recognizing these and other types of derailment are necessary to follow a given conversation in an intelligent, informative and appreciative manner.
Depots have taken over whole countries with simply a microphone.
Politicians convince some people that the sun shines at midnight.
And some hobbyists refuse to fully appreciate the views of others when they simply don't believe a particular facet of the hobby that others share.
The operative word seems to be 'share'.
They do it with a practiced conviction that at first blush appears to have some sort of validity but upon cursory examination can be laid bare for what it is: a disparagement of sorts for no particular reason.
Sorry to go like this but Bryon made a mighty fine point that i just had to add to.
All the best,
Nonoise |
|
One school of thought uses gestalt in visual perception. We see the whole and later discern the parts. Can it be that gestalt is also used aurally? In fact, since the limits of hearing are absolute (limited to that tiny opening and yes, bones and cartilage) wouldn't gestalt be the only way they do work?
We hear everything we do only to debate, here, just what it was and why it was. We tell each other that we hear the same thing or that it's impossible to hear what we heard, with our own ears.
Each of our experiences take different paths to get there, there being our auditory pleasure. When we sit down to listen. our ears are the final arbiter and I, for one, trust them explicitly. I've been around long enough to recognize a difference, be it better or worse, than what I'm accustomed to.
I believe that I hear everything all at once and almost as quickly, appreciate, evaluate and decide if what I'm hearing is better or not. It doesn't come in piecemeal but we debate it as if it did since we tend to dissect and analyze in that manner. In other words, once I've heard it, there's no going back. Something happened that made it different and I can either fret away and try to improve it or appreciate it all the more.
The whole is different than the sum of its parts. I guess it comes down to just how many parts there are and that is where disagreement enters: just how many parts.
All the best,
Nonoise |
Whart, that makes a lot of sense and explains why I liked my old Hornshoppe Horns knowing that the highs weren't as extended as they could be and the lows weren't as authoritative at they could be. My mind filled in the rest since the greater aspect of the mids gave me the 'gestalt' of the music. Cool. By the way, if anyone is interested, here's a snapshot view on just how fast our brain processes info: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-122756.htmlI think it furthers the notion that we take everything in only to process out the truth later. Our brains can react so much faster than we are trained to. That's the underlying process in speed reading. We tend to sub vocalize each and every word instead of just scanning it. That is why we tend to forget what we just read and get bored since our brains are screaming at us " faster, faster." All the best, Nonoise |
