And music is only sensible mathematics agitated by the heart for the ears...You're a poet as well. 👍
All the best,
Nonoise
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????
355 responses Add your response
This discussion is interesting but quite unimportant. Really, ladies and gentlemen, who cares what others (audiophiles or not) think about your system or the effectiveness of its components and accessories? Just enjoy YOUR system and the music, and purchase components and accessories that make YOU happy😊! |
Recap: People come to your home to socialize and listen to music. Audiophile removes speaker wires from cute little trestles, then changes cables, point out minor differences no one cares about. It sounded fine. He continues to try to educate guests, guests who were enjoying the music and camaraderie, who suddenly look baffled and say, "WTF, Nerd!". |
Huh? Are you saying that you can't get a degree in theoretical physics? You can even get a B.Sc. in it. There are many M.Sc. in theoretical physics. Of course, you know what people who take those degrees can say? They can say they have a degree in theoretical physics. You, you can't, at least not honestly. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/physics/theoretical-physics-bsc.aspx |
I can entertain a reciprocal relation with a living subject, for example Boris my dog, and Boris my dog can entertain a relation with me...In the universal memory field of morphic resonance of Sheldrake (the living part of the information field) this relation is there transforming itself for eternity... The relation I have with a table or an amplifier does not transform itself for the eternity and is not reciprocal...This is a passive external relation that works only one side, it is an illusory relation...The relation with Boris is not illusory...It is a conscious individual... I can entertain a relation with my amplifier, but my amplifier cannot entertain a reciprocal relation with me, then this relation is not in the living part of the information field, and is not there primarily for the eternity... The morphic resonance field is in the living part of the information field, and is linked internally to the universal memory field directly...If you apply this theory directly to object like to a living consciousness you go too far away... An audio gear, amplifier, dac, etc cannot be connected to a consciousness the same internal way a living subject is... This is the difference between the morphic resonance theory of Sheldrake and magical thinking...And there is one... G.K. your interpretation of the theory of morphic resonance make it magical... The science fact behind this theory that must be verified by experiment is "the internal reciprocal link" between all living consciousness on earth and in the universe, be it me and my dog for example... With this interpretation I think that this theory is valid and falsifiable...Not with your interpretation...Things dont exist forever for eternity, you did, and all conscious being did....Hence things (pre-conscious being are not autonomous INDIVIDUALS) dont entertain internal reciprocal relation with you and me and our consciousness...We differ on that... Tweaks cannot be explained by morphic resonance theory directly in the first place...Not my tweaks at least... My best to all... |
GEOFF, Please Stop Lying. You, yes You, absolutely did claim that you have a degree in theoretical physics. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophile geoffkait, |
Thanks millercarbon Very interesting voice of Alan Watts that was unknown to me but I read it a lot young...It was the first voice for me that made me thinking about my link with the world...My best to you.... |
thyname “‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“” No s@&*%t, you just realized that now? That’s what this guy does, full time. It’s his job. Every single Facebook group and audio forum. He has mastered the art of trolling. Can’t beat him I am afraid >>>He’s a troll? Are you hot doggin’ me? 🌭Well shut my mouth and call me cornpone! Shut the cave door and back to pigmy country! |
mahgister =Oh, that! Why didn’t you say it earlier? Is is possible to have an object without any potential link to consciousness? Isn’t everything related on some level?» In the cartesian dualism there is a subject external to the things...Most materialistic science are born of this ideology...This ended after Max Planck...But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:) No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it...All is related on another level yes...in pure mathematics, reality is totally revealed, it is a pure field of signification for the consciousness...I love mathematics not because I love to calculate, but because numbers are more real than a table for me.... And music is only sensible mathematics agitated by the heart for the ears... >>>>I’m afraid things are in much worse shape than you might realize. All of that philosophical stuff has its place, no doubt, but for AUDIO the biggest overachiever 🏋🏻♂️ has got to be Rupert Sheldrake. And the best part is that his theory of morphic resonance is something you can actually APPLY to audio. So, it takes things out of the realm of intellectualism and puts it directly into direct APPLICATION. And morphic resonance can be proven. Yes, that’s right. In fact, a 💰 prize WAS awarded to the person who proved it. The panel of judges included David Bohm, no mean philosopher himself. LONG LIVE INFORMATION FIELDS! 🤗 For the advanced student, https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/A_New_Science_of_Life_Appx_B.pdf |
atdavid, I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m a theoretical physicist. Theoretical propulsion and theoretical fluid dynamics are both theoretical physics. Hel-loo! I never said I had a degree in Theoretical Physics. Get over it. That’s just your failing memory playing tricks on you again. Or else you’re lying. Take your pick. You’re wrong every time you open you’re mouth. You can’t seem to get things straight. Eat more fish. 🐟🐟🐟 |
mahgister: No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qml1-xzPpxY |
I will make you a deal geoffy. You stop making things up and claiming you are something you are not, and I will not feel a need to show others your lack of transparency. Deal? geoffkait18,266 posts11-14-2019 9:10pmatdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy. Did they say why they want to terminate my command? Do you think my methods are unsound? 😬 Read my lips. I only give you information I want to give you. |
Good laugh Skerdi. If only you knew how many people blocked you on FB because you weirded them out. Shouldn’t you be running to report back to Ted or something right now? thyname432 posts11-14-2019 9:21pm“‘’ atdavid, you sure are a nosey f%@*$er. And quite creepy“” |
Are you perchance related to Descartes? If yes, congratulations, Descartes is a real genius! But I am by no way related to him.... By the way if you are a " prof" you certainly had read Whitehead, or Husserl that settle that problem for good before me, and Goethe, reader of Spinoza, in a more profound way before them...I am, perchance, related to Goethe...For teo_audio I am afraid that you will be in the obligation to ask him...And my "strawman sense" also is tingling by the way.... If you cannot understand Husserl or Whitehead, try Charles Sanders Peirce, who also settle the problem perhaps not for good but in his own particular way ( he reformulate it more than he settle it)....But I doubt that any reader of Richard Dawkins can easily navigate between Husserl, or Whitehead or Peirce...It is not strawman argument of my part anyway, only my opinion, a stupid opinion perhaps, but anyway only an opinion or a philosophical prejudice...:) I wish you the best... |
I like me some philosophy. However.... But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:) My strawman sense is tingling ;-) No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it.. Well, I'm glad you have settled that scientific/philosophical puzzle for good! Are you perchance related to Teo? |
«Oh, that! Why didn’t you say it earlier? Is is possible to have an object without any potential link to consciousness? Isn’t everything related on some level?» In the cartesian dualism there is a subject external to the things...Most materialistic science are born of this ideology...This ended after Max Planck...But some (Richard Dawkins for example) are slower to understand...:) No object is possible without a consciousness that are implicated with it and more than that always constitutive of it...All is related on another level yes...in pure mathematics, reality is totally revealed, it is a pure field of signification for the consciousness...I love mathematics not because I love to calculate, but because numbers are more real than a table for me.... And music is only sensible mathematics agitated by the heart for the ears... Sometimes I am a bit too enthusiastic, I apologize for my zealous philosophical rant...But it is more interesting than insults...I wish you the best Glupson... |
My apology and salutations Glupson... I only want to say that it is impossible to understand things at the end without some implication of the observer and the phenomenon... The eye-brain-mind for example and some phenomena... For example the rainbow is nowhere to be seen without this participation of the conscious eye... At another level in quantum mechanics an object totally external to a consciousness without any potential link to it, is a thing impossible to think of in quantum terms... By the way I am a heavy reader not a scientist.... |
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..... |
So tell us just what that job is? I am really quite looking forward to the story you will spin. Can you wait 3:30 while I make popcorn? In the meantime, while people are waiting, here is another thread from Stereophile forums in September 2014, 5 years ago. It seems that all you ever do is create chaos and piss people off while actually bringing a sum quantity of 0 to any conversation, if not negative because you will try to shill your stuff. https://www.stereophile.com/content/absolutely-classless-stereophile toledoOffline It's a tough call with Geoff. It's a tough call with Geoff. You want to treat people with respect but need to adjust their behavior. He certainly does twist himself into knots, though and you can always tell by the frustrated summations or lashing out or simply saying "no I am not" like a little kid. I think Geoff needs to understand that he does not have to reply to every comment and set himself up with the weirdest logic or insult people when he has nothing better to say. If I was selling his types of products, I might have a chip on my shoulder too. |
So you were lying on LinkedIn too Geoff? Senior Coordinator, Learning Center Company Name Lockheed Martin Dates Employed Apr 1998 – Jun 2001 Employment Duration 3 yrs 3 mos Location Chantilly, Virginia |
prof The OP starts a thread denigrating audiophiles, and plays the well-meaning, high minded one when some refuse to join him in his cynicism, and continues to slime those with another view. I’m getting de ja vu... >>>>Yes, an obviously a well planned and coordinated attack by desperate determined pseudo-skeptics in an feeble and unsuccessful attempt to bring down audiophiles and controversial audiophile concepts. Sent by Grocery clerks to collect a bill. No big deal, it happens all the time. If it wasn’t so humorous it would be very boring. If they aren’t from The James Randi Educational Foundation they might as well be. |
Hmmm...I guess I can think of some things that can be "wrong" with *some* audiophiles. Like...over-dramatic insults of audiophiles who don't agree with the OP.
The OP starts a thread denigrating audiophiles, and plays the well-meaning, high minded one when some refuse to join him in his cynicism, and continues to slime those with another view. I'm getting de ja vu... |
Sorry gk, but you spilled the beans on that one before, both Lockheed training coordinator and doing test engineering. I have a long memory. geoffkait18,261 posts11-14-2019 6:56pmWrong again, Zippy. I do know a thing or two about testing, that’s true. Unlike yourself, if I can be so bold. |
I have an engineering physics degree and an MEE in semiconductor physics (which sounds impressive till you find out most working in the field have PhD’s). Never, in a million years, would I have considered myself a theoretical physicist. I have met thousands of engineers. Never once did anyone claim to be a "theoretical physicist" ... because you are not. Taking a few courses in theoretical physics does not make you a theoretical physicist, it makes you someone who took some courses. Writing some things about quantum mechanics that have never been published, never been peer reviewed, never been proven, does not make you a quantum mechanical engineer, but it may make you a crack pot. |
A theoretical physicist and a quantum mechanical engineer .... but ended up as a training coordinator at Lockheed and working mainly as a test engineer .... geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:40pmAre you stupid or something? I’m serious. I’m an aerospace engineer. I’m an aerodynamicist. I’m a theoretical physicist. I’m a quantum mechanical engineer, too. |
I can be the mediator so both are correct. Aerospace Engineering part of University of Virginia does mention that curriculum included propulsion and fluid dynamics. It is a little less clear if one would call that theoretical physics. In a sense, you do need to learn some physics for it and at some point you would be learning theories of it. Probably a lots of it. Now, would that final degree be called "theoretical physics" is slightly harder to decide and stay unbiased. Maybe dean’s office is the place to ask. http://records.ureg.virginia.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=45&poid=5589 EDIT: Maybe the wording/name of the degree has changed since 1967. Those things happen. At that time, it could have been that "theoretical physics" encompassed things that are now so subspecialized and called something else. |
Thermodynamics ... pretty much standard in many Undergraduate engineering curriculums. Indeterminate structures ....pretty much standard in any civil or mechanical undergraduate curriculum. Nuclear engineering, likely a 4th year elective. Color me unimpressed ... even with your skating. The hole, it keeps getting deeper, and deeper and deeper. Now I am solidifying my theory that the "theoretical" aspects you mentioned may be falsifications as well. geoffkait18,259 posts11-14-2019 6:31pmMy courses included statistical thermodynamics, nuclear engineering and indeterminate structures. I was in the first class of Aerospace Engineers at the beginning of the race to the moon 🌝 |
Geoff, Keep fooling yourself. There are many educated people on these forums. They know, that a Batchelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering, is Not a degree in theoretical physics. Engineering ... is not theoretical physics. It is not even experimental physics. You keep digging that hole Geoff. When you hit bottom, you let us know. Speaking of morons, stop treating others on this forum like they are and have no clue what an undergrad aerospace degree would look like. You literally claimed you have a degree in theoretical physics. That was a whopper and you should be ashamed. |
What a moron! My curriculum in aerospace engineering was theoretical propulsion and fluid dynamics. That’s theoretical physics. My courses included statistical thermodynamics, nuclear engineering and indeterminate structures. I was in the first class of Aerospace Engineers at the beginning of the race to the moon 🌝 |
Below is what Geoff Kait claims about himself. However, the University of Virginia says Geoff graduated with a Batchelor’s degree in 1967 from the School of Engineering and Applied Science (what they call engineering schools) in Aerospace. That is most definitely NOT a degree in Theoretical Physics. His quantum chips ... aren’t "chips" i.e. intelligent chips you would think of, but I am sure there is a very creative explanation for them. When you start out with gross lies, it pretty much makes everything you say suspect. It seems to be a common problem in certainly audiophile circles. geoffkait, |