2. misc-audio
  3. 152899-117374

Has to be said

Hi,
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire  hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.

ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....

128x128hemigreg
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
I don’t actually care if you use classical theory or quantum theory. I’m right either way. Checkmate! ♟
berner99
214 posts
 
A large number of posts on many threads boil down to:  

i have theory that says what you hear isn’t possible (by the stated mechanism) so you must be wrong, or deluded.

Certainly people can want to believe things, and certainly their are dishonest people, but if a large number of people hear a difference it seems reasonable that it might be worth checking out.  Unless of course you are posting for other reasons.

and David and C3 (if he’s posting on this thread) you both need to reread that quote by the physicist in the other thread.  It was a max Planck quote about how new beliefs spread (and don’t)
atdavid
736 posts
 
Hey Miller and Clearthink, want to explain again how you need a conductive surface for a scanning electron microscope to work? I am still getting a good laugh over that one! :-)

rodman99999
6,020 posts
 
"Oh, one last but very important point.    In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory.   That's one.            And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation.    That's just the way it goes. "                                   EXACTLY / EXCELLENT                                       
atdavid
736 posts
 
There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big you can drive a Kenworth through it, I don't think it qualifies as viable any more. When that "theory" could be easily verified, but is not, then it loses much of its claim to viability.


its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation.

More to discover