What is an electron?
Please define.
Good luck....
Please define.
Good luck....
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something that has happened countless times happened again last night. Ordinary people over for a party listening to some music easily hear things audiophiles argue endlessly don't even exist. Oh, its worse even than that- they not only easily hear but are stunned and amazed at what they hear. Its absolutely clearly obvious this is not anything they ever were expecting, not anything they can explain- and also is not anything they can deny. Because its so freaking obvious! Happens every time. Then I come on here and read one after another not only saying its impossible, but actually ridiculing people for the audacity of reporting on the existence of reality.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Okay, concrete examples. Easy demos done last night. Cable Elevators, little ceramic insulators, raise cables off the floor. There's four holding each speaker cable up off the floor. Removed them one by one while playing music. Then replaced them. Music playing the whole time. First one came out, instant the cable goes on the floor the guy in the sweet spot says, "OH! WTF!?!?!"
Yeah. Just one. One by one, sound stage just collapses. Put em back, image depth returns.
Another one? Okay.
Element CTS cables have Active Shielding, another easy demo. Unplug, plug back in. Only takes a few seconds. Tuning bullets. Same thing. These are all very easy to demo while the music is playing without interruption. This kills like I don' know how many birds with one stone. Auditory memory? Zero. Change happens real time. Double blind? What could be more double blind than you don't know? Because nobody, not me, not the listener, not one single person in the room, knows exactly when to expect to hear a change- or what change to expect, or even if there would be any change to hear at all. Heck, even I have never sat there while someone did this so even I did not know it was possible to hear just one, or that the change would happen not when the Cable Elevator was removed but when the cable went down on the floor.
We're talking real experience here people. No armchair theorizing. What real people really hear in real time playing real music in a real room.
I could go on. People who get the point will get the point. People who ridicule- ALWAYS without ever bothering to try and hear for themselves!- will continue to hate and argue.
What is wrong with audiophiles?
Something almost all audiophiles insist on, its like Dogma 101, you absolutely always must play the same "revealing" track over and over again. Well, I never do this. Used to. Realized pretty quickly though just how boring it is. Ask yourself, which is easier to concentrate on- something new and interesting? Or something repetitive and boring? You know the answer. Its silly even to argue. Every single person in my experience hears just fine without boring them to tears playing the same thing over and over again. Only audiophiles subject themselves to such counterproductive tedium.
What is wrong with audiophiles????
Showing 6 responses by teo_audio
This forum has become tiring (ok, when was it not tiring....). I'm having considerably more fun over here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48895.640 |
Everyone and his brother knows what an electron is. If you don’t Teo I suggest you consult Wikipedia. Wikipedia says it is a subatomic particle. the wiki entry for subatomic particle says: In the physical sciences, subatomic particles are particles much smaller than atoms.[1] The two types of subatomic particles are: elementary particles, which according to current theories are not made of other particles; Which means..theory. Electrons are a theory. As in: ’we don’t know’. That one theory interacts with this other theory and we think we (whatever a we is) know what an interaction is, but we really don’t know what this place is or what ’reality’ is. Reality... stubbornly remains undefined. Max Planck, in some writing, thought of it as an information field. Or one might say that it is defined as the least amount of capacity/energy to discern a differential. That reality is ...differential. That it is nothing but differential. Ie, pure holographic differential, discerning those differentials, if the idea of intelligence within it carries any water at all. For whatever that might be worth or mean. So..auguring facts when facts simply don’t exist, is kinda a fools game... Scientific laws? The height of insanity. Godel’s incompleteness theorem as an act in logic, dressed up an an illiterate projecting clown. We are a undefined thing measuring an undefined thing. It’s still turtles all the way down. When we actually read what physics says about it, this is exactly what it says. Undefined. Unknown. Science the heck out of it all you want but...the logic remains, at the limit of definition.....limited. Circular. Confined due to this fabric issue.. and not of all things, as it simply can’t be -as stated by the logic of the very the idea of science and physics. Granted, it is a big load line with lots of dots on it and a nice line drawn through it..but the ends and the space around it are still a fog. It hangs in a undefined space of...who knows what. Just sayin, you know...just sayin...so...don’t get too hot about this or that, as it is all underpinned by...unknown. |
+3 glupson2,911 posts11-14-2019 3:57pm When you really start thinking about it, it can make you posit that the electron is the causal aspect of the entirely fictitious nucleus. But of course, there is a theory to cover that one, too... |
You guys are too deep. Any way to simplify it for the regular ones? Smoke ’em..if yah got ’em.... as... Pushy insistent jerk = meaningless self absorbed drivel. (could be me, could be you, reality plays no favorites) As in..really, seriously. By the very idea of intelligence, science and regimen in testing/results itself. And if you want to change that you require a projecting harmonious pushing insistent gang --to force it. Now ain't that a weird one. But all it is, is force, not reality. But... by force, they make it so. Sound familiar? We all know the behavior and the equation, but the science on it, ain't what most people think it is. |
Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn’t exist They are being polite. It’s not even possible to be a suggestion; the definition of science done in proper logical frameworks, explicitly states that objective reality is not possible. Even zanier...they use the word fact. the PEAR institute illustrated this clearly, in a set of meta experiments that have, by all the scientists involved..have less of a chance of being wrong, at 3 billion to one. What they illustrated is that reality is entirely subjective to the point that those who disagree can create their own reality that is separate from one who believes and projects something else. That this basic point is correct to the odds of 3 billion to one. This is not exactly what they proved, but it is part of the package. Part of the dominoes that fall on that one...is that scientific facts that are considered to be universal, by definition, cannot and do not exist. That there can be mass aggregate scenarios where the smaller part is forced along in an eddy current flow kinda way, but that realities and projections are one and the same. Subjective, not ever objective. Long story..... |