Kuhn wrote a famous book about paradigms changes to demonstrate the opposite ...
Most people observing a disturbing fact troubling their calming perspective on phenomena will keep their paradigm , as someone loosing his keys may search for them at the feet of the lamp pole because the explanation must be there because light shine only there ..
is it not logical?
They are afraid not only to loose their keys now but to loose their only "reason" ...then they stick to the post lamp as a herd in the same spot all together ...
«Fools had lost everything save reason »-- G. K. Chesterton
I wish you a merry christmas and in the name of all a warm welcome in audiogon ... 🎄
When a reliably observable phenomenon can’t be explained within the boundaries of existing paradigm, what would a wise person do? Change the paradigm!
|
The problem is tribal divisions itself programmed by external ideology...
Blaming a political tribes instead of seeing the problem at the larger scale is sleepwalking ...
I just discovered a scientist who was working with two Nobel prize and specialist of alzheimer and genetics who investigated in a new book how programmed we are ...
Nothing happening on earth is by mere chance ... There is no conspiration ., only stupidity trailing greed for power ,all is in the open: controlling dictatorship alleged necessity but in reality by interest and power convergence or democracy itself , which democracy almost disapear as a fact in all Anglo-saxon countries as in Germany and France and stay as a no more working idea for the moment ...( half asleep brains claiming that i advocate speaking so for going to live in China instead of North america may stay mute)😁
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31nRwB7yh2g
The Indoctrinated Brain By Michael Nehls... Dont believe me check his credentials and listen his short interview ...
|
+1 thanks for this very short on the point post...
John Vervaeke explain all that in a stunning huge set of video courses called the "crisis of meaning" on youtube ...
waytoomuch discusses being on the losing end of a conversation. What conversation? People now talk at instead of with. Who wants to think when discussions now are see as causing trauma and not growth.
|
Great post to read!
+1
When the brain is washed ideas exist no more and they are degraded in ideology, and when the brainwashing is complete, ideology are downgraded in pure "herd identity" with scapegoating mechanism as a way of living ... A divided brainwashed herd is easily controllable ...
The last 4 years taught us all that even to these who were half asleep as i was ...😊
|
😊 +1 tomic601
My own dog is interested by Schopenhauer philosophy of music and face me intensely when i point the right main point about it ... I said to everyone, facing them or not , what interest me , but people are not dogs.... I am so stupid or a too big ego or the two....Sorry...
At least i know myself....I speak only with friends anyway here or there ....
|
No one can pick on someone with a so peculiar humor and syntax and common sense...You are anything save a nut case... Myself i am nut by profession now retired ...
I did not even tried to pick on you because i could always only nod to your posts ...
If i could not one day, i will never bother to act against a so good heart ...
😁
@phd ....in my experience, there will generally be someone who decides to pick on one....or any group in existence...🤷♂️
Validity of the ’picker’ to the ’pickee’ varies the response....at least, to moi’.
I feel like a nut mostly, so it keeps the ’pickers’ at bay...(Out to sea would be preferable, but results vary...) . ;
|
Interesting...
Thanks.
As for my methods of evaluation. Essentially it’s a combination of measuring and listening. Listening comparisons are done blind when possible. The BACCH SP has a few features that work as amazing evaluation tools. Along with unique in ear measurements of frequency response, impulse response and cross talk cancelation, there is a feature that allows you to create a transfer filter that will simulate your system from in ear measurements. This allows for quick switching comparisons between system changes that can not be switched with any meaningful speed. It also allows for real time comparison nd between in room recordings, again from time n your ears directly with play back of that recording. The room changes will be evaluated using the BACCH system simulation. Any and all DSP will be evaluated with simple quick switching in and out of the signal path. All of which will be compared and contrasted to measurements taken through the BACCH and also using REW.
|
I am not surprized by your reaction my friend... 😊
I know personaly that you are a generous and great soul... And they generally cannot imagine the rest of us as we are ...Fearful and revengeful because easily manipulated.. then there is truth in the two posts, yours and the friend to whom you replied ...
Merry christmas to you and enjoy the mate cold or hot and stay healthy ...
I neither fear nor hate anyone who disagrees with me, and I’m sure that goes for the vast majority. See, I completely disagree with you, yet I hold zero animosity towards you. I do however find your statement quite odd.
|
Thanks for this short on the point post which do better than my too long posts ...😁
DBT and other snippets from the work of Dr. Toole or Sean Olive have been adopted by a few as the gospel mantra to explain all.
Dr. Toole said it pretty well himself to summarize the complexity, nuances, and pitfalls of the musical listening experience. "Two ears and a brain respond very differently to a complex sound field — and are much more analytical — than an omni-directional mic and analyzer."
|
For sure you are right...
I only use his attitude as an index and as a mere symptom about a greater societal and civilization problem ...
He is only deluded by the importance of double blind test over anything else...
This means something ... I spoke about what it means not about him personaly ...
Now if you had not seen the techno cult in the last 4 years at work, you dont live awake , sorry ... 😁 It is not complotist theory, it is society tectonic plates movement in the soul ...Materialism versus spirituality... by the way i am not religious...
I know that free will exist and that human soul are grounded in infinity as all living entities...They are not finite machine ...But this question is to begin with for me a mathematical one and i cannot go further here ...
I don’t see any evidence that he is part of some "techno cult," seeking to do some great societal harm. it seems to me that he just doesn’t believe there is any value to high-end Audio cables. I can live with that.
|
|
Art is a crafmanship born from necessity, but educated by the heart and mind ...Science is his offsping as is technology ...
The question is , who want a purely non human health care with the hypothesis that the human body is only a machine corporations will takes care ?
What is sound, the result of machine manipulation and computing or an artform expressive of human heart ?
For sure you are right and i thought the same...
But how to answer someone who dont trust his own heart and ears ? Only dials and double blind test protocol because and it is true, human hearing is prone to errors as it is prone to learnings ...
I prefer to fail and learn step by step ...It is called art ...
«Good sound is never so much the perfect sound but only the sound you created and produced by yourself as art form «--Anonymus musician 🎹
Music is art….there in lies the elusive meaning of a subjective response, communicated by objective devices. If you have a response which allows that art to connect with you, then look no further.
|
What I find interesting is why does this topic produce such an entirely emotional response? That would be an interesting study.
The answer to this is simple and evident...
There is a universal debate in our society all across earth about what is human and why post-human is inevitable and better ...
There is a techno cultist ideology permeating all societies fault lines ...
There is transhumanism opposing techno-cultutist religion for human version 2.0 and human version 1.0
Now in psycho-acoustic it is not double blind protocols which are a mere tool that define "sound musical quality" but it is the way evolution grounded the human life for his survival in an acoustic environment created by the gesturing and sound producing body of mankind which psycho-acoustics science try to understand using all different tools and methods between pure physics and neurophysiology and psychology, music, linguistic etc .....
The study of what is a human perception of sound qualities and the complex amount of information conveyed by the ears/brain/body are on the brink to be completely revolutionized , as all aspects of society begin to be , by A.I. revolution and the way the techno-cultism of corporations will define what is human , an obsolete animal and what tomorrow must be : the dawn of a new type of post human...
The battle is between those who refuse to reduce wisdom to mere knowledge and those who refuse to reduce human knowledge to mere science , and those who refuse to reduce science to mere technology and refuse to reduce all life to a mere technological tool ....Rationalism in his new form as in his past form is not reason ... Read Blaise Pascal and Goethe ...Two top scientists ...
In audio the same battle rage between subjective human and techno cultism in a way or in another reflecting the great battle ... This is why us ordinary people felt this debate as fundamental ev3en when manifested in a minor way in an audio forum about the question : what is sound quality and how to spoke about it ...
|
The sound quality of the Scottwheel system has nothing to do with his dogmatic opinion about how to implement double blind testing protocols for all audiophiles before they spoke about their system impressions or about reviewers before they review anything; the sound quality of his system has nothing to do with double blind test protocol as a universal measure of what is a "musical meaningful sound" ...
I am sure by the way that his system is at least good and better than most system of the people here ... He own the best sofware to do this created by Choueiri not by double blind test protocols 😁but because Choueiri know enough physics and love enough Bach great mass his favorite works to do so ...He declined to explain this after i asked many times to change his tune for a more useful message and to change the matter of his ideological discourse for a serious acoustic subject ...He refuse to do it ...
I am not worthy of his trust it seems because i think that universal double blind test is unpractical and meaningless as a universal method to test audio claims by ordinary people ... I am not against double blind test protocols as a statistical tool in the industry even in audio, and i am in favor of simple improvised blind test in some step of the optimization process of any system for the average audiophile...
Then slipping on his personal system qualitative value proves absolutely nothing about his claim and prove not at all that he is reasonable in his demands toward us all : he implicitly means ,shut your mouth or deceive people because you refuse to use double blind test protocol in your listening testing ...
But the question of tomic601 about his claim of owning a SOTA system ( Who decide what is SOTA and who the judge will be ?) after scottwheel suggesting himself that it is because of double blind test choices from him, which is bullshit claim, is a meaningful question he refuse to answer save by an invitation ...He own a top system for sure because he bought costlier components not my low cost type of component and more importantly so because he is the owner of the BACCH filters the next acoustic revolution on stereo listening AFTER the transition from mono to stereo ... This SOTA system has nothing to do with double blind test protocol... He never really preach about that BACCH...Why?
Why harassing people right to communicate their subjective impressions about their journey by asking as a mantra : stay silent or prove your right to speak qualitatively about the gear AFTER you have adopted the dogma of double blind test for all because me scottwheel i own a SOTA system ... This is Bullshit, the real reason why he own a SOTA system is because he own the BACCH system on which he said almost nothing but spoke on all his posts since he is here about his enlightenment in the art of double blind test to heal subjectivist audiophiles disease ...
I conclude that he is of good faith but lie to himself about his motives ; or he is of bad faith and lie about the reason his system is SOTA, not double blind test choices but mostly the new acoustic revolution tool : the BACCH system... Pick your choice about him ...
|
Why did you not listened to me and spoke about your friend Edgar invention instead of this crusade about double blind test for all ?
You would have been useful for all here, even for me because i read about it in awe but dont own it , but instead you choose to be annoying ...
I think i get it : We are not worthy of this communication as a subjectivists deluded audiophile crowd ... 😁
So ridiculous is my thought i could not discover any other explanation for your opinionated obsession about double blind test for all ...
«Every man is a different mystery»-- Anonymus thinker
«Hell is only this : science at all cost and only science for all and for the greatest good»-- Anonymus reader of the novel Morwynn by John Cowper Powys
|
Now psychanalysing your motives and explaining your obsession for double blind test by the stress resulting from your discovery that we cannot trust our ears (which fact is not even wrong but which fact is not true either because we can and must learn how to train our ears) was perhaps an error i did trying to understand you ...
Perhaps you are only a techno- cultist objectivist in a crusade against deluded subjectivist audiophiles ... you are not the first one here ...
You never considered that "the faillibility" of human hearing was the reverse side of the coin , and reflect his creativity in perception of meanings ... We never hear sound as in physical waves, we hear meanings ...No perception exist without a concept behind it ... If not only meaningless chaos exist ...
|
Nobody negate the usefullness of double blind testing...
You dont get it scottwheel ..
But nobody here confuse laboratory protocols with home listening and audio optimization as a hobby ...
I dont need double blind testing protocol before purchase...
Some company as good marketing practice could gain to use it not only for publicity but for a continuous improvement of the product...
What is annoying and preposterous then is your fixation on double blind test as the only way to pick gear or to optimize our audio system ..Simple improvized blind test is enough ...
Did you get it ?
A hammer is not craftmanship, a double blind test is not science... It is a tool in the two cases which ask to be used at the right time for the right job and by the right person for a specific goal which is NEVER debunking ...
|
From wikipedia :
«In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it.»
Then someone who trust his ears someday suddenly discovered that he could not trust them anymore ... This sudden discovery is so stressful that he embark on his crusade because he is coherent and want to solve his own stress problem after this sudden discovery and adopt double blind test method with rapid switching to calm his doubts after every purchase and he begin to preach everyone about it as if each person was like him stressed by the discovery that our hearing is not always trustfull...😊
This is cognitive dissonance ...
Myself i slowly learned how to trust my ears in the limit of a specific domain of activity : acoustic of room/system and audio optimization ...For sure i can be deceived sometimes then i used simple blind test as a tool ...But i never encountered a traumatic experience of self deception as some high end costly consumers who became stressed by their experience and stressed by the sudden understanding about their self deception ...
Then i was never myself in a state of cognitive dissonance nor in a crusade for truth ... I stayed always relaxed and never stressed occupied by my acoustic journey ..😊
that is straight up cognitive dissonance
|
Double blind test are not science , they are tool useful for example in pharma research coupled with statistic , never on an individual basis ... Simple blind test are useful tool in the designing process on an individual basis NEVER as debunking tool "per se" more a testing tool ...
Most techno cultist conflate science with his tools , as Dr, Fauci confused his statistics use with science, but for Fauci it was greed and power not a confusion created by naivete at all ...😊
|
Exactly!
I tried by two times to discuss rationally with him to no avail ... The last time he extracted my sentence of his context to made his obsessive point about double blind testing ...😁
I renounce to discuss with him ... He is of good faith tough, very intelligent , and i dont doubt his system is good with the BACCH filters... The problem is his past frustration , his change of mind about high end gear, then his crusade on us , poor deluded audiophiles he want to save us really , we are like he was before the enlightening sun of double blind test revelation as a debunking tool ...Now price tag means nothing for him compared to double blind test ...He turn his coat inside out about high end , beginning to be a customers of high end and now becoming a debunker ...😁
But for me price tags had never mean much because i learned how to use basic acoustics and other optimization methods to reach what i called : the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold , defined by a balance between all acoustic factors implied in the opti9mizaqtion process of any system/room at any price ...
I learned to trust and train my ears in a minimal way with acoustics experiments .. I dont need to be a debunker ...
Acoustician designing a small room dont use double blind test and has no need for it ...
@maghister he can’t trust his ears he does not want us to trust ours.
|
He is afraid of his own ears testimony....
Sorry i could not resist ... 😊
|
My criteria is mainly acoustic parameters and factors on which i can act as did your "friend" Edgar; not double blind test ...😊
I learned to trust and trained my ears enough to do a minimally satisfying job... You said yourself that you dont trust your own ears without double blind test ... Is it not comical ?
By the way i am pretty sure your system is minimally good at least, not because i trust the ears you did not trust yourself each side of your head , but because your own the set of filters of your "friend" Edgar ...
😊
On a side note, I’m not sure you have a very accurate and complete accounting of my criteria for judging audio
|
Psychoacoustics laboratory double blind test statistical research dont means that any perceived qualia in your living room is a deceptive illusion if you dont go for a double blind test ...
Think about the complete absurdity of such claims over the head of all hobbyist buying their gear and optimizing it mechanically, electrically and acoustically ...
Why in the world someone will take one week to patronize everyone about this double blind test ? They are not practical at all ..
How many changes i did encounter in the few years i takes to create my system room ?
Thousand changes with tuning of one hundred resonators ...
simple blind test are practical when needed and they were needed , but double blind test with switching box my a...s.. How to do this with room acoustic tuning ?
How to do this with mechanical damping tuning process ? How to do it with some devices used in electrical noise floor controls ...
I used simple some blind tests for my satisfaction ... According to scottwheel i am deceived and i deceive people not asking for double blind test for ANY SMALL INCREMENTAL CHANGE, among at least one thousand one in few years ..
Sometimes we makes a fool of ourself without being even conscious of what we ask for ...
Laboratory conditions research are not a home listener room ...
For the cables i bought they were low cost one and i modified all of them without double blind test to my audible satisfaction (deceived or not i did not feel the desire to buy costly one ) ...
😁😊
Only a gullible revengeful owner of high end costly gear and cables can reverse his coat and now ask for double blind test or otherwise ask ourself to shut our mouth ... Comical as a three stooges movie ...
I am not gullible , never buy tweaks, nor costlier gear, i study basic acoustic, buy low cost gear and reach sonic heaven after few years without doubleblind test ...
|
I thought i was pretentious ego... And i am a bit for sure or perhaps more than a bit and i apologize...😁
But some beat me patronizing every hobbyist as deceptive and deceiving because we dont use only and essentially double blind test as the only factor to assess objective sound quality in our acoustic room or in our living room ... Fascinating human indeed ...
I myself affirm that improvised simple blind test are enough in our optimization process ...
I just bought a low cost pre-amplifier i dont need a double blind test to perceive immediate improvement...
Why ?
Because aural memory is associated with the body and not just the brain... Sound memory is not a book stored on a shelves... Sound qualia are associated with the body movement and reaction too because memorizing sound and producing sound are associated ...
Also aural memory is of two kind : conscious memory manifesting as clear thought and unconscious deeper memory in the body emerging as emotion and feeling...
i dont remember consciously for a long time the difference between two sounds impressions for sure , but relaxed with enough time my body and my associated emotions with the different sounds inform me on a subconcious level and i feel at ease with the sound or not ...
I dont need a double blind test as claim scottwheel with a rapid switching to feel my emotion... I need time and relaxation in my acoustic room...
I connected the low cost pre-amplifier i received today and , knowing my room/ system i felt an improvement ...
Scottwheel will call me deceived and deceiving in my review because i did not pass a double blind test BEFORE writing my review...
Some people were deceived in the past by some very costly high end products for nevermind the reason , and now they crusade against any subjective impression as almost a fraud if not verified by double blind test...
For me simple improvised blind test is enough and not even always necessary ...
Myself i was never frustrated because i never owned high end costlier product as scottwheel , save vintage one, and i always relied on my creativity not on double blind test ...
I think scottwheel deceive himself with this mantra ...He dont even believe it himself ...😊 I hope for his sake he dont believe it himself ...😁
|
Exactly right ...Especially when it is done not on a statistical way with a crowd in a laboratory where the number of subjects is crux of the matter for the average results, but in a confortable living room with the owner listener own perceptive habits ...
You can quick switch with cables but that would negate what the masters learned about human hearing and how our brains work. People need time to adjust to properly ascertain what they’re listening to.
|
Familiar listening condition in a relaxed mood with our biases and listening in artificial controlled conditions imposed on us trying to eliminate some biases ... In the two cases we use the ears/brain biases blind or not...
As i said in my post ...
I am not against double blind test, this would be stupid ... But they are impractical most of the times for most people ... Simple blind test is enough ...
No objectivist pick his gear by double blind test first... They read the electrical specs first ... They did not most of the times anyway double blind testing of their choices when the electrical specs are good, they bought it ..😊
You misread my post and truncate my sentence of his context : the context was THE GEAR CHOICES PICKING UP CONDITIONS...This is what separate these two groups..Not the acceptation or not of double blind test which is only here a rhetorical and ideological posture impractical to do anyway ...
No objectivist go buying an amplifier blinding his eyes in a store to pick it up ...Do you ?
he read the electrical specs and trust that first ... He listen after ...
I think that you are an "objectivist" fanatic by the way you read my neutral and conciliating answer to you and trying to distort it for the sake of your double blind test obsession ... ...
Sorry but for me objectivism made no sense no more than subjectivist taste as the main ways to create a system room with satisfaction using acoustics basic and simple blind test and ears training in simple acoustic experiment ...
Are you here for wise discussion as your last post suggested to me or are you here to impose double blind testing as the only way to pick the gear or testing it on all people here ?
Even Toole do not pick his personal system for his living room AFTER a double blind test ...He pick it as any sane individual by listening to it , reading the specs and thinking about his room acoustic content, geometry, topology and dimensions ...
I am pretty sure that he will not come here nullifying any person testimony as meaningless if not put on double blind test ... He is a human first not a scientist doing statistical studies 24 hours on 24 hours ...
Sound qualities can be defined by parameters but in these set of parameters, they are biases coming from personal history , Toscanini biases are not on the same nature than Toole biases or mine ... We use these biases, generally not in a laboratory to define what is human hearing in a general way, but for the enjoyment in a relax way or for our work habits with our EXCEPTIONAL way each of us to hear sound , deceived or not, with all the shade of grey between reality and illusion which is the "meaning" territory ...
Eliminating all biases , which is impossible anyway, may be at the end also eliminitating meanings , the ears is not a microphone but a subjective part of ourself, not a tool ...
Why is it impossible to eliminate all biases ?
Because the way we listen is with all part of ourself, we decipher sound as meanings for us with our biases acquired from the womb till today...
Only ignorant think that it is possible to listen without biases... Eliminating one bias as sight is one thing , eliminating all internal biases is impossible by the definition of what hearing is ..
We listen with our biases...
You are obsessed by the elimination of biases... I am not... I am interested by the training of my biases... As any musicians ...Occasional simple blind test is enough ...
Keep your double blind test as obsession , i will use my simple blind test occasionnally as test , and i will enjoy my biases ...
“A subjectivist use ONLY his ears to decide that a system is good or bad... “
listening with ONLY your ears means doing it blind. Some subjectivists do that and some don’t.
|
Good post and interesting answer thanks ...
A subjectivist use ONLY his ears to decide that a system is good or bad... the objectivist will not say that in this way, they will state that the subjectivist listen with his biases and tastes to pick up gear...
An objectivist will pick up gear by the electrical measured specs mainly, but a subjectivist will not agree to this bias favoring the measuring tool over the ears trained or untrained biases...
Then Scottwheel your description of the objectivist and subjectivisdt is at the same time very good but beside the point and beside the quarrels in opposite audio forums as audiogon and ASR ...
You definition is very good because by the choice of names of professionals you associated with the two sides , you picked very wise people with divergent attitude but convergent goal ...Psychoacoustics is a science used by them all and this science fly over these marketing and ideological postures of these two sides as manifested in opposite audio forum as audiogon and ASR for example ... It is why your definition is very good but also miss the point which can explain the fanatical quarrel roots itself : the choice of pieces of gear based on listening biases or on electrical specs ...
A living room is not an acoustic laboratory ... In the laboratory Toole select subject as himself with their ears and biases and study them objectively trying to eliminate the biases gradually by blind tests or other methods of selection...In a living room the listener is not tested and very relax in familiar condition ...
Psychoacoustics tell us that the best listening conditions are those of the living room or any familiar acoustic environment ...Not the laboratory , the living room in relaxation is better for memory, (true memory or fabricated) or for acuity ( true acuity or fabricated one ) ... Acuity under deep relaxation of the body may be increased way over any test condition... This is why psychoacoustic use statistical method and not blind test of individuals to eliminate exception and study the average listener as representative of humans in general...
But listeners are not laboratory rats...For the most part they identify with the subjectivist attitude not with the analysis of a dial nor with statistical elimination of biases or statistical studies of the biases untrained or trained as with musicians ...
Then as you capture well ,with your description of some individuality carefully chosen by you , the subjectivist and objectivist separation, as such you missed the occasion to put the emphasis on this quarrel derived from the marketing imperatives of gear choices; which quarrel is an ARTIFICIAL and IMPOSED distinction that makes no sense in psycho-acoustics nor in acoustics ...on that we understand then each other you and me ...
Your description so good it was as i said omit the source of this separation : marketing methods to sell the gear ... And your very good description of these intelligent and wise exceptional professionals mask and hide in an involontary way the root origin of these battling crowds of ignorant subjectivist and objectivist fanatics , which mock one another all day long in the name of taste or in the name of their electrical reading tools and in the name of double blind test ( i myself as most people designing their system/room use simple blind test ) ...
We must become conscious and wise....We must go over these ideological separation in the crowd and act more as the personnalities you had wisely picked ...😊
A subjectivist judges sound quality based on their personal preferences. The same way someone would judge food or art. If one finds the sound to their liking and then declares that to be good that is subjectivism.
An objectivist judges sound quality on accuracy to some reference. Maybe the recording or maybe live sound.
So we had people like Harry Pearson who cared nothing about measurements or science but was an objectivist because he felt there was an objective reference, “the absolute sound” the sound of live acoustic music, against which the accuracy of audio playback could be judged.
Then you have people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive who strictly evaluated sound quality in their research using proper time synchronized quick switching double blind tests but are subjectivists. All of their studies were based on listener preferences. All scoring of their tests were done with subjective ratings.
And yet many would label Harry Pearson as the poster child for subjectivism in audio and would consider Toole and Olive to be poster children for objectivism in audio.
|
|
Define the difference between subjectivist and objectivist please ?
“You are completely wrong here...
The two side subjectivist and objectivist are not divided between scientists on one side and superstitious dudes on the other side ...😁”
that’s sort of what I said. The terms subjectivist and objectivist are misapplied. I am a subjectivist.
|
He is not a troll ... He said it himself in a post above ... Stop calling everybody who dissent with you trolling ...
He was only someone who was credulous enough to buy anything very costly and did not take it lightly when he discovered the hard way that price tags dont equate acoustics knowledge ...Read his posts ...
Then if i read him correctly he embarked in a crusade even against his will against audiophiles and audiophile market products putting all of them in the same bag ...Like a children reacting to a negative experience always in the same way without any discerning ability ...
Now he does not even believe his ears if he is not doubly blind ...Amazing human !
The very interesting part of his audio life , the BACCH filters , he dont spoke about it much here , too busy to impose double blind test to any cables owners and repeating the same song ...
He is not nasty but polite as much as most of us by the way ...Blindly opinionated is not being nasty ...
We must stay civil and polite ... Arguments matter ... Name calling is childish ...
If i criticize in one sentence his saying i will say that it is complete misunderstanding of science to impose in any one listening room the same standard protocol on the listener than in a laboratory... The way we listen music is necessarily in a relaxed way in our own subjective world ... Meaningful acoustic experience of someone relaxing in his room cannot be negated as such because it is "unscientific" ...
Sound experience can be objectively parametrized and it is, thanks to great engineers and physicist , but it stay also a pure subjective experience ...
It is not taste, but taste there is ....😁
😊
«Ridicule kill everyone but kill "scientists" in a special way »-- Anonymus Nobel looser 🧐
Why do you people keep feeding this SW troll. He is a nasty little fellow.
|
Real conversation is possible when we recognize that our mutual conceptions could be and are usually "beliefs" ...
Using double blind test to protect your belief in a set of electrical measures as the ONLY measure of truth is not science. it is techno-cultism...
I already used simple blind test many times... I did not need to submit to a double blind test to convince you ... My system/room convince me and it is enough ... There is only one person here accusing others of "irrational beliefs" and asking before any discussion to double blind test standard... Everybody who did not do it is irrational and superstitious gullible consumers for you..
Do you see that we are not the only one with a "belief" here ? All the others here live with a set of perception which are well founded or not, deceptive or not, anyway they "perceive" it as real for them ...Their perceptions can be falsified by themselves without need for your double blind public test... They may use simple blind test for a cable for themselves... As i did... It is enough for someone who want to create his system experience...
Your belief that all audio phenomenon must be reduced to a known set of electrical measures cannot be falsified ..it is not science but techno-cultism...
Do you get the difference... Nobody here saying that their cables make a difference try to convince you, they only state their experience as a fact for them , right or wrong ... The refusal of their experience as only that, a subjective testimony, by you in the name of an unfalsifiable limited set of electrical measures and in the name of a future impractical double blind test is like religious propaganda ...It is the reverse attitude of high price cables marketers publicity... I hate publicity and dogmas be it from ideologues in techno cultism or from marketers...
Myself i will keep simple blind test as a useful tool with no public objectivist official protocol as enough for my needs ...I am not into scientist faith, i am in the simple journey to create minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold ...And by the way i modified all my low cost cables myself ...
“Real conversations” between people with opposing beliefs can not happen if either party is unwilling to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong.
|
Wise post! thanks it was a pleasure to read...
I think the same ... I call my actual experience with well embedded low cost system : a minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold passed ...
With costlier gear someone with acoustics knowledge may hope for a maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold...
i prefer to spoke about these two threshold experience than speaking about low-fi, mid-fi or Hi-fi Why ?
Because nevermind the gear price, anybody aiming for the best acoustic experience must adress , not only gear synergy , but acoustical refine control of the speakers/room , mechanical controls of vibrations/resonance, electrical control over the noise floor levels of the house-room-gear and also about EMI RFI controls... And even other secondary aspects ...
For subjectivist all is about taste which is not even wrong because acoustics factors are first and last objective parameters not tastes ...
For objectivist all is about electrical measures over taste... But if audio is not taste, taste there is in audio ...It is called ears/brain trained or untrained biases , innate or/and acquired biases... Biases are not bad or good by the way ...😊 We are not in the obligation to negate them in a blind test ...We can use them constructively in our own learning audio journey...If someone sell a product or design a product blins test are useful in the process ...
It is why i prefer psycho-acoustics basic to these two arguing opposite sides...
I believe our ears can be trained by acoustic experiments...And music education...
We can learn as much with a low cost system than someone with a high cost system...Or not... Learning is an attitude...
Musical ectasy with good sound in a minimal or in a maximal acoustical threshold is possible... We must learn the basic to be happy and not push ourself in frustration race of purchase...
Speaking for myself, I feel that I’ve gained respect for the experiences and opinions of other audiophiles by participating in these forums. I came in with my biases, expressed my doubts about some of the claims I read, and through further discourse have become more aware of the limits of my personal experience. Some of the stuff I will never be willing to invest in due to the very high prices, so I’ll never be able to get the extended experience to better understand what it might have to offer. I’d still like to see more concrete evidence about exactly what these ultra high end things do, but I’m far less inclined to quickly write off their value for those who are able and willing to pay. I feel I better understand my position in the spectrum of audiophile experience and expertise, and as a result I’m happily satisfied that while my choices do not reflect what is absolutely best, maybe not even the best I could afford if I was better informed, they are what fulfill my desires to a substantial degree while fitting within my means. I keep participating to become better informed. Over time it seems to be paying off because I’ve never had a system I enjoy as much as what I now have.
|
You are completely wrong here...
The two side subjectivist and objectivist are not divided between scientists on one side and superstitious dudes on the other side ...😁
This division exist because some people trust first and often more their own hearing habits and personal histories in listening to create their own audio system than only measured specs ...
The other side trust mostly if not only and completely the electrical measures specs of the pieces of gear over their own ears to create their own audio system ...They ask for double blind test precisely for this reason about any perceived change for any claims about sound qualities ...
The fact that you mischaracterized the real distinctions between the two groups by reducing one side to supertitious or self deception and the other side to be scientific , reveal your own partiality and misunderstanding ..
i myself identify with no side... the two sides may be beside the main acoustics points and matter for different reasons pertaining to their own divergent biases...
I trust my ears but i learned that we can trust it only by acoustics experiments ...then i am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist...
But it is more wise to trust his common sense and ears when buying something than only confide in measured specs after blind test ...
Nobody is against blind test but this is an impractical way to design an audio system in his acoustic environment by the way ...
but it is useful if our mission in life is to mock and debunk an owner of a costly cable for sure ... 😊
Then you speak as an ideologue or a propagandist... Common sense is my preference ...And psycho-acoustics where subjectivity and objectivity are correlated and studied as not separable...
I am an advocate of blind protocols in any testing for differences or preferences. Has nothing to do with subjectivism vs objectivism. Terms which are mostly misused to identify with audiophiles that accept science in audio vs those who reject it. But even more so than that I am an advocate of time synchronized quick switching comparisons. Both are vital for getting reliable results. How other audiophiles choose to do their comparisons is on them.
|
I understood by your own post claims that you are an expert in cable transparency and an advocate of blind tests as the main solution to all subjectivist audiophiles superstitions ... No ?
😊
I never claimed to be any kind of expert either.
|
By the way i already answered to that partly with a scientific article about aural memory i posted for you somewhere above ...
A.M. is distributed in the brain on many levels and layers in many different parts of the brain ... Guess why ?
Aural memory is a complex phenomenon , not a simple retrieval measured set of bits stored on a disc...
In human the gesturing body/brain produce sounds as much as much as he perceive and memorize them as meaningful , we assimilated then aural qualities as felt created events and interpreted aural meanings with all the body and associate sounds with gestures and other perceptions and conditions in the environment ...
It is why there is more about sound perceptive qualities detection, interpretation,memorization and retrieval than mere measures in Hertz and decibel detected by the ears/brain and verified in a double blind test ...
Anyway ... as you said you cannot made head and tails of my posts and you tuned out ..😊
I am too stupid or too bright for you , or the two at the same time ... I dont know ..
Now to understand why aural memory is a complex problem not as simple as your blind test experiments, read this article and go back to me and explain to me what this means ... Then we will discuss science not blind testing of audiophiles ...
https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html
«Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. ....
.........................................................................
New sound models
The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing.
"In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted).
"The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models."
By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy.
"You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said.
Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.
"We are also studying with these same methods the notion of simultaneity of sounds. If we’re listening to a flute-piano piece, we will have a distinct perception if the flute ’arrives late’ into a phrase and lags the piano, even though flute and piano produce extended sounds, much longer than the accuracy with which we perceive their alignment. In general, for many sounds we have a clear idea of one single ’time’ associated to the sound, many times, in our minds, having to do with what action we would take to generate the sound ourselves (strike, blow, etc)." »
We also know, based on a large body of research that humans can not accurately compare an aural memory to real time sound. Not even close. And we know through other studies that it is a cause for humans, all humans, to misidentify differences in sound where none exist.
What is really dumb is to think that they continually miss real audible phenomena that is only detected by audiophiles under non controlled conditions.
|
How kind and wise you are indeed ...I never said anything myself about Choueiri save elementary facts and i quoted articles about Choueiri asking you, because you own the BACCH filters, to speak more about Choueiri than about cables subjective choices of audiophiles and then not unnecessarily provoke people...It is more interesting to learn about an acoustic revolution than to learn that we are deluded because we bought some cables ... You dont think so ?😁😊
And now you tune out with no arguments about my posts save insinuation about me and my intention .... You are of very bad faith my friend ...😊
Have you forgot that i welcome you and ask you to spoke about the BACCH filters instead of harassing cable owners with objectivists dogmas and blind test ?
Me unlike you i am not convinced that ALL cable owners are deluded ...I dont mind about cables anyway ...
I am interested by psycho-acoustics and his philosophical meaning ...My own system is low cost and totally satisfying ... I will buy the BACCH filters for my headphone because they are top one and i know they will greatly benefit from it ... I dont need other upgrades... Thats all ... But i will never suggest that people speaking about their cables qualities are ignorant because not supported by science ... You know what i means ?
😁😊
“The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊”
and that’s where I tuned out….
|
Empathy is a precious gift to understand people... Alas! many people here as in any other forums dont understand the situation of others and mock them...
This attitude is called "stupidity" by an italian economist named Cippola who wrote the best book ever about "stupidity" describing it rigorously ...Feel free to read it and learn as i did, it is a free book ...
«
"The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity" (1976) The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is independent of any other characteristic of that person. A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.»
|
The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊
my point is simple :
Hearing is not well understood in spite of hundred years of research...
Then invocating science in the singular mode as techno cultist did to direspectfully disqualified any non measurable subjective perception is not polite nor scientific ...
The fact that any buyer of the BACCH system as you are one can speak directly to Choueiri because he help them does not means anything in this discussion ...
And by the way i never gave an "analysis" of Choueiri theory only a simple description in few words and i only suggested to people to read him...
You had the tendencies to misread and twisted quotes and using authoritative name or fact out of the context to assure your simplistic claim about audiophiles as being deluded and lost because they trust rightfully or wrongfully their ears ...
As i already said, i am not a subjectivist nor an objectivist audiophile ... Your are clearly an objectivist ,...
Why claiming more than one time you own opinion and disclaim as illusion any other subjective perception even a wrong one ?
Do you not think it is not a bit provocative ?
It is like going on ASR forum and asking them to trust their ears ...😁It will be dismiss as idiotic beliefs if not substantiated by a set of measures ... Do you get it ?
I suggested to you in the beginning more than a week ago instead of dismissing cables perception or anything of this kind to spoke about Choueiri precisely because it could have been more constructive and useful here than systematically dismiss others subjective and/ or objective experience or purchases IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE ...
Do you get my point ?
Forums are social meeting points, not tribune to impose truths especially when there is no universal accepted theory of hearing in spite of our powerful technology ..
I dont give a damn about cables by the way , in my experience they made small differences compared to acoustic and other mechanical and electrical factors ... And i dont came here to put the shame on the head of those who had experienced otherwise with other gear, other room , other brain/ears and other histories... We can make clear our opinion and goes about more serious matter as i suggested to you a couple of time (Choueiri for example ) ... Then other audiophiles no more hurted by your dogmatic attitude would have listen to you ...
Do you get it ?
I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly.
Perhaps i am absolutely a confused mind and you cannot made head and tails for this reason...😁
Perhaps i am more nuanced and more complex than your simplistic appeal to "science" and nothing else ...😊
Like you i am also provocative in a way , i plead guilty of charge ... But here i defend the right of people to express their subjective hearing experiences without blind test and in spite of your kind of science ... It is a forum of audio hobbyist ...not a circle of audio engineers all educated in the same mold ... It is why it would have been more useful to make them curious about Choueiri discoveries as i suggested after your first three posts here than learning that they are deluded about their cables choices in the name of science...✝
Do you get it ?
I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write
|
“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”
that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him.
It escape your criticism that i spoke about OTHER qualities than the spatial one Choueiri explained very well ( these spatial qualities we loose by the crosstalk effect in the way stereo work). I spoke about these qualities which were spoken about in the psycho-acoustic article i send to your intention and did not read ...😊You are too busy patronizing primitive audiophiles ....
For example these qualities by which we perceived any information ABOUT THE INTERNAL STATE of any vibrating source of sound...Be it the dimensions of a set of holes in a wooden tubes and the number of holes or a leaf sound difference between the lips or the inimitable meaningfuls inflexions of your mother voices communicating very complex set of information or the very detailed meanings of a stranger voice heard for the first time and read instantly ... Do you think we know perfectly how the brain extracted these qualities information complex meanings by reading a set of Fourier maps of the sound ? 😁
A fruit is ripe or not, if we tap it we feel it because we recognize it by qualitative synesthesical association... An empty space is localized this way by tapping in a tunnel...
The scale of tones meanings and recognition in relation to pitch is a set of qualities that poses many theoretical problems in psycho-acoustics even deep mathematical one...
Have you read the article of a psycho-acoustician i posted for your comment above before jumping on one of my sentence and misreadeading it ...All sound qualities are not spatial qualities of sounds...You get it ?
By the way i can as you just did but in a more rightfully way examine the error you comitted conflating high technical measuring precision with CONCEPTS and understanding in science ... For sure high precision in measure is related to theoretical understanding but are not the same at all ...The epycycles of Ptolemaus were measured way more precisely than the poor Copernic gross circular heliocentric orbits by the way ... Do you get the point ?
A set of concepts is not always a set of measures...it is the same for a set of perceptions which is always anyway a set of implicit or explicit concepts called also by psychologist "biases"...Untrained and /or deceptive biases and/or thruthful biases , as well as trained and/or deceptive biases and /or truthfull biases ...
"Hopefully " as you said you do not confuse measures and theory because they can be well correlated or not so well ...The discrepencies could be explained by a new concept, a new perception and a new theory or not ...
How many hearing theories do you think exist now ?
"Hopefully" you know that many opposing and complementary one exist, because hearing is as many other things , as qualia perception, are not understood well at all ...
In the article above the psycho-acoustician spoke about auditory scenes analysis which is one of these theories ...
"Hopefully" for us you are not a techno-cultist masquarading as scientist as " Dr." Bill Gates or are you ? 😊
Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission
|
it is very simple... The less someone know about sciences the more materialistic he become with age... ( see Dawkins and others )
The more he know the more spiritual he become...
Is it a pure random effect that all the greatest mathematicians of the world , not some professor at harvard or Princeton, i spoke about the super genius in science are all "mystics" ?
In the past the exemple dont lack... Think about Blaise Pascal or Newton or Leibnitz...
Now go to the founder of set theory Cantor, a pure mystic who created his theory reading Dyonisos treatise on hierarchies ...Even Cantor method comes from spiritual contemplation ... I can even explain it how and why but it is not the place ...
Go to Ramanujan who spoke each night with Namagiri about number theory ...
The founder of all modern algebraic geometry and topos theory Alexander Grothendieck wrote a book of 1000 pages about God and dreams ... ( i have his 2 huge books )
Nowadays there is plenty of techno-cultist materialist, who knows nothing out of their fields , who flirt with atheism, materialism and transhumanism ...The dude who like the most science is "dr." Bill Gates and look at what this fool is doing across the earth...Look at all the harm he has done in the last years for profit..
Now in audio people live intimately with their soundfield, but if psycho-acoustics taught us how to create a good stereo sound, as Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊
Now these discoveries dont mean that we know how the ears/brain create "meaningful" sound with all this information coming from his environment but also from many unknown factors working on the sound perceptible qualities coming from a vibrating sound source and perceived by a human as such and such qualities meaning such and such ... Humans are not microphone at all ...
Ok i spoke too much...
😁
@maghister. I agree. Look we have opinions and I respect every one’s right to have an opinion but we have all different systems and to tell someone it’s not possible when the are listening to their own system while some are typing their scientific theories is beyond me.
|
We hear meanings with our consciousness not mere hertz frequencies with the ears ...
It is why the human ears is not a microphone ...
You are not even wrong scottwheel ...
But i will not write a very long post to contradict your "not even wrong" observations conflating technological knowledge about the ears/brain and science open vast questions about this ...
Listen to my video above about the guru rolling in a fire and analyse "the trick" for me if there is one ... 😊
A very simple article to read to get my point ...
https://acousticstoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Psychoacoustics-A-Brief-Historical-Overview.pdf
«Although research on complex sound processing was pur-
sued by many psychoacousticians, there was no overarch-
ing theory or organizing principle to integrate the knowl-
edge being accumulated and to make new predictions. This
changed when a series of articles, chapters, and books ap-
peared between 1988 and 1992 (Yost, 2014). The book by
Al Bregman (1990), Auditory Scene Analysis, captured the
essence of these other authors’ attempts at finding an orga-
nizing principle for complex sound processing, and Auditory
Scene Analysis captured the imagination of perceptual scientists
in hearing as well as in perceptual and cognitive psychology.
Sounds from the various sources that make up an audi-
tory scene interact physically and arrive at the ears as a
single sound field representing the physical combination
of the sounds from the various sources. The auditory pe-
riphery uses biomechanical and neural processes to send
a neural code to the brain representing the spectral/tem-
poral features of that sound field. There are no peripheral
mechanisms that process sounds as coming from individual
sources. There is no representation in the neural code flow-
ing to the brain that the scene may be one of a car driving
by as the wind blows the leaves and a child giggles. Yet that
is what we can perceive usually immediately and effortlessly.
The sound is complex and the listener may be hearing some
of the sounds for the first time, yet the auditory images are
often vivid. These auditory images allow the listener to identify the car, the blowing leaves, and the giggling child. The
brain performs auditory scene analysis. Psychoacoustics has
just begun to investigate how the brain does this. It appears
to be a daunting task; it is, like Helmholtz observed, trying
to look down a tube at waves on a beach and determining
what caused the waves. It is likely that the next chapter in
the history of psychoacoustics will be written by present and
future psychoacousticians who help unravel how the brain
analyzes an auditory scene..»
|
Excellent post...
But i will correct you about this era... This is the age of Trump and Biden ... Trump is not the only con man ...
This is the internet, the age of Trump, and outrage and disrespect for others seem to go hand in hand any any post you might write. Audio asylum has been this way for years which is why I never look at it or Facebook or any other.
I guess many were not taught in school, working well with others, being a good citizen, civics, and so on, all taught in elementary school and graded on your behavior. To be known as a liar was the worst thing you could be or called, all frowned upon you. Now you get elected to office. Sad you cannot have your experience posted without it turning into a blood bath at times. This hobby was one of sharing experiences and learning from each other from those who might have 30-40 years of experience.
|
Great post! and in constrast with mine with only few words...😁
It would be a better world IF more people with evangelical like certainty about JUST how the ear brain works would approach it with less certainty…..
Those who brag about what science describe as possible and then about what is impossible are often wrong ...
Guess why?
Nature dont obey limited human technological dogmas...We learn from Nature habits, but nature habits are no more "nature" than the habits of someone are a definition of himself.. ( Philospher of Nature is a title dismissed in 1836 by the British society for the advancement of science under Whevell and Babbage tutelage, replacing it by the word "scientist" at the service of his majesty corporate powers and this was prophetized by Goethe Faust part two published three years before the real British "scientists" meeting )
And we dont understand hearing yet by the way ...Only those confusing DSP technology feats with hearing understanding brag about what is true and what is false about sound qualities as perceived ...
A simple example of impossibility for scottwheel :
is a man can for hours lay in a fire without being affected ?
Answer scottwheel please when patronizing us about science ... 😊
Listen to this and debunk it for us poor superstitous audiophiles ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfyrWRbmss
By the way instead of patronizing people about what they must hear and cannot hear... Why instead speaking about the BACCH filters a true acoustic revolution unrecognized yet by most audiophiles especially if unlike me you own one😁 ... Stirring a controversial pot is useless, speaking about an acoustic revolution would be more useful ...
|
I come here not only for learning facts about audio 7 years ago ... I came here and i begin to love many characters here , even those who were not necessarily loved by all and even those who argue with me sometimes in a hard way ...😁😊
I love people generally and i like to discuss...I can be hot passionate in discussion but i do not entertain grudges ...
I spoke too much about what interest me and i was used by my job to know what a student think about any matter .... The problem is that i am interested by too much questions to only stay silent... I apologize for that...😊
A forum is like life, i will not argue about the prime numbers distribution with a policeman in real life when taking a beer neither about acoustics mysteries and what is a sound quality ...Usually in my past life i only argued with students in any fields all my life ... ( i am used to be the only grown man with 20 years young man in average )
Here we dont know with whom we talk ...
Then i can argue about prime number distribution with a big policeman and said to his face that he is wrong thinking that prime numbers are invented by mankind ... They are not, they are discovered as the galaxy was discovered not invented ... And i can argue with the same policeman here or with an engineer about ecological theory of hearing and why they exist because Hearing is not explained by Fourier maps and we can side in opposite directions...
The big policeman may reply kindly or not so much with sarcasm to my opinion ... I will reply in the same tone to his opinion HERE not in front of him on a corner street 😁 ... Because we are in an anonymus forum i talk to his brain and to his heart not to a big policemen body who is not in the habit to be contradicted in front of everyone by the way ... I will contradict him anyway if i feel he is wrong HERE not on a street corner if you know what i means...
Myself i admit easily when i am wrong , and i love almost all people....Some ask for more amount of time to be loved the right way than others for sure ... The problem is i must felt i am wrong to admit it .... I apologize for that because it can take a long amount of discussion for me to realize that i am wrong ....😉
I consider this forum a map of the earth, no more evil and no more good than any other forums... Perhaps better than any other forums because i love too many characters here to make a count ...
I even thought about those members who died or quit ....
A character is unique as a footprint, once you recognize it and see it no more for a long time , you miss him ...
|
