IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

55 Pages V  « < 52 53 54 55 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Article: Why We Need Audiophiles, The subjective perspective
Moog
post Aug 12 2009, 14:43
Post #1326





Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 25-April 08
Member No.: 53053



QUOTE (honestguv @ Aug 9 2009, 03:46) *
QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 8 2009, 20:59) *
Do you think resurrection and virgin birth of a male human is not disprovable by science?

Try disproving it using the scientific method.


Simple:

Try repeating the experiment, and see if you get the same outcome!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Aug 12 2009, 15:35
Post #1327





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (Moog @ Aug 12 2009, 09:43) *
QUOTE (honestguv @ Aug 9 2009, 03:46) *
QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 8 2009, 20:59) *
Do you think resurrection and virgin birth of a male human is not disprovable by science?

Try disproving it using the scientific method.


Simple:

Try repeating the experiment, and see if you get the same outcome!


A strict requirement of replication invalidates most historical sciences (archeology, evolution, etc.). All that is really required is that the evidence can be examined by independent observers and conclusions can be agreed upon.

Also, "proof" and "disproof" in the strict philosophical sense can only be applied to logical arguments. Science can only provide us with the most likely explanation of the evidence.

In the particular case above (resurrection and virgin birth), given all that we know about the natural world, the most likely explanation for the accounts is the unreliability of human testimony.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Aug 12 2009, 16:29
Post #1328





Group: Members
Posts: 1326
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



If evolution is a "historical science" then so is biology and for that matter, astrophysics and cosmology.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Aug 12 2009, 17:07
Post #1329





Group: Members
Posts: 3420
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



An important aspect of the scientific method is that a theory be used to predict things that have yet to be observed, and that testing then confirm those predictions.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Aug 12 2009, 18:12
Post #1330





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 12 2009, 11:29) *
If evolution is a "historical science" then so is biology and for that matter, astrophysics and cosmology.

Perhaps "historical science" is not the best term though I have seen it used elsewhere when making this point. My point is that we don't have to have an experiment in order to have science, unless by experiments we simply mean observations. New fossil finds, genetic analysis, etc. confirm evolution without requiring an experiment that causes something to evolve. Likewise, we don't have to create a new universe to confirm cosmological models.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Aug 12 2009, 22:28
Post #1331





Group: Members
Posts: 1326
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



Well since this thread has gone to the crapper long ago, we might as well discuss this. Evolution does predict, that's my point. It has predicted for instance that a certain type of organism should have existed during certain period, and then sometimes fossils are found. It uses available findings to build a theory which predicts. New evidence supports the theory. One that I can remember is the chromosome 2 fusion in humans, AFAIK it was predicted before the evidence was found. "Prediction" doesn't always mean some specific event that will happen in the future like an asteroid collision, but also you can predict that something will be found, based on previous evidence or theory. I don't know much about anthropology, but I presume it works the same.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Aug 14 2009, 15:27
Post #1332


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5171
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Aug 12 2009, 15:35) *
In the particular case above (resurrection and virgin birth), given all that we know about the natural world, the most likely explanation for the accounts is the unreliability of human testimony.
I don't think the logic holds there. It might be a reasonable possibility given what we know about human testimony, but "all that we know about the natural world" seems to have little bearing on it.

Surely the claim is that at that time, in that place, what we know about the "natural world" did not apply because something specific, non repeatable, and unnatural happened.

To argue "something unnatural can't have happened, because unnatural things can't happen" is heading towards a circular argument.


I wonder if the "human testimony" argument is much use either - if you decide that such things cannot happen, then you can stand there and watch them yourself and yet decide that what you are seeing is a trick, rather than what it purports to be.

Indeed, that's partly why the scientific method requires that other people can repeat an experiment and corroborate the observation - on the one hand because people are easily fooled, but on the other because when something genuine but new is discovered it will initially look like "magic".


Not sure what this posts adds to our commutative understanding of why we need audiophiles wink.gif


Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Aug 14 2009, 22:22
Post #1333





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



Back to something resembling the OP, 'sasaudio' is off again about professional qualifications, how I was a janitory at Bell Labs, etc.

Worth a gander over at stereopile just for the laughs, I think.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 15 2009, 16:15
Post #1334





Group: Members
Posts: 3929
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 14 2009, 17:22) *
Back to something resembling the OP, 'sasaudio' is off again about professional qualifications, how I was a janitory at Bell Labs, etc.

Worth a gander over at stereopile just for the laughs, I think.


I read, I cried a tear for logic and reason.

I count something like 55 pubs, and watched two idiots who can't even properly write their own names dismiss it all.

Just another demonstration of how being an idiot makes you a natural part of Stereopile's market. ;-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Aug 16 2009, 04:33
Post #1335





Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.
I agree with the "3d special feeling", I just can't find it when listening to CD.
And I'm saying this "from memory", I remind how vinyl were great.
But there are other aspect that are great on digital, so I don't have too much regrets.
Overall, it's like from going to coca cola, to pepsi. Not exactly the same taste,
but you can get used to it.

But in an other hand, I think spending $350,000 on a stereo system is stupid .
Unless you have an insane amount of money to spend. And even it's the case ,
there might be wiser ways to spend such amount of money.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ed Seedhouse
post Aug 16 2009, 06:04
Post #1336





Group: Members
Posts: 160
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 69959



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 15 2009, 19:33) *
I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.


Yeah, well we lost a lot of noise, bad pitch control, distortion, and uneven frequency response, that's true. I for one don't miss them. Every time I've compared a vinal record to it's CD verstion the vinyl has, by comparison, sucked, and sucked obviously.




--------------------
Ed Seedhouse
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carpman
post Aug 16 2009, 06:44
Post #1337





Group: Developer
Posts: 1319
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 44789



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 16 2009, 04:33) *
I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.
I agree with the "3d special feeling", I just can't find it when listening to CD.
And I'm saying this "from memory", I remind how vinyl were great.

And many old people think the past was great (even if there was a bloody massacre going on at the time) - it's called nostalgia and it's an illusion. Ed Seedhouse has just described the reality.

C.

EDIT: chopped waffle.

This post has been edited by carpman: Aug 16 2009, 06:54


--------------------
TAK -p4m :: LossyWAV -q 6 | TAK :: Lame 3.98 -V 2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ed Seedhouse
post Aug 16 2009, 07:02
Post #1338





Group: Members
Posts: 160
Joined: 19-May 09
Member No.: 69959



QUOTE (carpman @ Aug 15 2009, 21:44) *
And many old people think the past was great (even if there was a bloody massacre going on at the time) - it's called nostalgia and it's an illusion. Ed Seedhouse has just described the reality.


At 65 i am old enough to remember reading articles in the 1960's about how much better the good old 78's played with thorn needles were than them danged new-fangled LPs.

This post has been edited by Ed Seedhouse: Aug 16 2009, 07:03


--------------------
Ed Seedhouse
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Aug 16 2009, 07:05
Post #1339





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (Ed Seedhouse @ Aug 15 2009, 23:02) *
QUOTE (carpman @ Aug 15 2009, 21:44) *
And many old people think the past was great (even if there was a bloody massacre going on at the time) - it's called nostalgia and it's an illusion. Ed Seedhouse has just described the reality.


At 65 i am old enough to remember reading articles in the 1960's about how much better the good old 78's played with thorn needles were than them danged new-fangled LPs.


I might be 9 years behind you but I remember some of the same nonsense, and the bit about how stereo "ruined the music", just about like how "multichannel isn't musical" nowdays.

It's a religion for those guys. If you contradict their dogma, they have no choice but to go on jihad.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Aug 16 2009, 08:40
Post #1340





Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



Well, I remind of listening the bad album from Michael Jackson,
It was just ten time better in term of "excitement" of what I hear now on cd.
When I listen to the "bad" track on cd, it just seems "flat".
While with the vinyl, I got the feeling that sound was "moving" in the room.

Maybe the digital remastering crap, I don't know.
But I never got the spatial sensation I got before, with any cd.

I bought recently a xonar stx, high end sennheiser headphone, some great altec lansing speakers
(I mostly listen to music in front of my computer these times).
Nope, not the great excitement I got before.
Maybe my ears were damaged, or call it nostalgia...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carpman
post Aug 16 2009, 09:08
Post #1341





Group: Developer
Posts: 1319
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 44789



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 16 2009, 08:40) *
Maybe the digital remastering crap, I don't know.

Very likely. There have been plenty of CDs (not just post 1995) that were mastered very poorly. Many times I've felt that sound engineers got carried away with the potential stereo seperation on CDs (when old pre-CD material was being remastered for CD) and over-did it (just because you can split the content 100% Left 100% Right, doesn't mean it's aesthetically a good move). On top of that you've also got all these loudness atrocities, but none of this says anything about the CD medium itself.

I guarantee I could transfer your Michael Jackson vinyl to CD and nothing audible would be lost, and a) I could make it sound identical, and b) I could very likely make it sound "better" (i.e. less clicks and pops and noise etc .. obviously if you like clicks and pops it wouldn't sound better, but hey). Yet, as is often pointed out, you cannot do the reverse: if you take a CD release and from it create a vinyl pressing, the vinyl medium adds its own "characteristic sound" to the mix and thus vinly simply cannot replicate CD.

C.

This post has been edited by carpman: Aug 16 2009, 09:08


--------------------
TAK -p4m :: LossyWAV -q 6 | TAK :: Lame 3.98 -V 2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 16 2009, 10:37
Post #1342





Group: Members
Posts: 3929
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 15 2009, 23:33) *
I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.


Sicenc says that what we lost is a ton of noise and distortion.

QUOTE
I agree with the "3d special feeling", I just can't find it when listening to CD.


Science has an explanation for that. No matter what we hear, we remember it, and it takes the same sound to engage those old memories. If you remember music with noise and distoriton, it will take similar noise and distortion to give you "That same old feeling".

QUOTE
And I'm saying this "from memory", I remind how vinyl were great.


I lived through the entire life of vinyl as a mainstream medium which was from the early 50s to the mid-80s. Yes, vinyl was a big sonic improvement over 78s, especially 78s as they were commonly played - with acoustic phonographs.

QUOTE
But there are other aspect that are great on digital, so I don't have too much regrets.


The history of mainstream media shows that for most people, progress is about sound quality and convenience. The general acceptance of MP3 is a kind of proof that the CD was sonically ideal, even so ideal that a few small steps back in terms of sound quality are an acceptable trade-off to obtain more convenience.

QUOTE
Overall, it's like from going to coca cola, to pepsi. Not exactly the same taste,
but you can get used to it.


Since I had a long history of listening to live music several times a week to prepare me for the CD, I was used to the CD before I heard it for the first time.

QUOTE
But in an other hand, I think spending $350,000 on a stereo system is stupid .


If I had $350,000 to do with as I wished, I'd have to work hard to overcome my desire to do something for the real world that I live in - the happiness and comfort of my neighborhood, the city.

QUOTE
Unless you have an insane amount of money to spend. And even it's the case ,
there might be wiser ways to spend such amount of money.


Agreed. Audio and music are important to me, but not mroe important than the whole world.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
extrabigmehdi
post Aug 16 2009, 14:52
Post #1343





Group: Members
Posts: 409
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 72330



@carpman
QUOTE
Many times I've felt that sound engineers got carried away with the potential stereo seperation on CDs [...] and over-did it (just because you can split the content 100% Left 100% Right, doesn't mean it's aesthetically a good move).

That's an interesting remark. I've re-listened to the "bad" track, and perhaps my critic would be that the left and right, are somehow "not related".
It's as if I'm not able to recreate a "stereoscopic" image, and instead hearing two different thing simultaneously.
I could say that my ears are "squinting", although, that's a bit exaggerated if I would compare with true eyes problems.
Maybe I should just enable the option "dolby headphone" of my sound card, the problem seems less obvious.


@Arnold B. Krueger
QUOTE
Sicenc says that what we lost is a ton of noise and distortion.

Well, it's more about a "physical" sensation, than something you hear I believe. The sound might be more faithful with cd , but somehow the "emotion" is lost. And playing with equalizer and introducing artificial distortions won't help.

edit:
By the way I tried the izotope vinyl plugin , and I thought: "what an ugly thing". It restore all vinyl defaults, but none of it's advantages. The only thing maybe interesting, is the low pass filter, so it's a bit "easier" to listen.

This post has been edited by extrabigmehdi: Aug 16 2009, 14:56
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andy o
post Aug 17 2009, 07:57
Post #1344





Group: Members
Posts: 1326
Joined: 14-April 09
Member No.: 68950



QUOTE (Ed Seedhouse @ Aug 15 2009, 22:04) *
QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 15 2009, 19:33) *
I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.


Yeah, well we lost a lot of noise, bad pitch control, distortion, and uneven frequency response, that's true. I for one don't miss them. Every time I've compared a vinal record to it's CD verstion the vinyl has, by comparison, sucked, and sucked obviously.

I would say we lost a few kg of equipment too. I don't even miss CD players. The iPod is probably the best that has happened in music equipment in the last decade for me. I remember the clunky 12-disc CD changer in the old car. Nowadays you just connect one cable to a thing the size of a lighter and you'll get many times more music. I like progress.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Aug 17 2009, 09:03
Post #1345





Group: Members
Posts: 3929
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 16 2009, 09:52) *
@Arnold B. Krueger
QUOTE
Science says that what we lost is a ton of noise and distortion.


Well, it's more about a "physical" sensation, than something you hear I believe.


The physical sensation is endomorphins being released into your brain when your pleasure center is being activated by a familiar sound.

The sense of familiarity is based on your memories, which are obvious dominated by the experience of listening to vinyl.

My sense of famliarity is based on my memories, which are far more dominated by the experience of listening to live music.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 17 2009, 19:23
Post #1346





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Aug 14 2009, 17:22) *
Back to something resembling the OP, 'sasaudio' is off again about professional qualifications, how I was a janitory at Bell Labs, etc.

Worth a gander over at stereopile just for the laughs, I think.



Not gonna do it...reading his craptacular posts makes me be feel all 'HULK SMASH' and it's too early in the week for that.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 17 2009, 19:30
Post #1347





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Aug 12 2009, 13:12) *
QUOTE (andy o @ Aug 12 2009, 11:29) *
If evolution is a "historical science" then so is biology and for that matter, astrophysics and cosmology.

Perhaps "historical science" is not the best term though I have seen it used elsewhere when making this point. My point is that we don't have to have an experiment in order to have science, unless by experiments we simply mean observations. New fossil finds, genetic analysis, etc. confirm evolution without requiring an experiment that causes something to evolve. Likewise, we don't have to create a new universe to confirm cosmological models.



Note in support: Evolution, including speciation, has been observed. Ignorant people who rant about there being 'no evidence for macroevolution' don't accept the evidence for observed speciation because they seem to think speciation will mean a jump from, say, tigers to housecats in one generation (or even more ignorantly, genus or phylum-level jumps).



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 17 2009, 19:33
Post #1348





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 15 2009, 23:33) *
I'd just like to say that I respect Fresmer for saying that we lost something from going to vinyl to CD.
I agree with the "3d special feeling", I just can't find it when listening to CD.
And I'm saying this "from memory", I remind how vinyl were great.
But there are other aspect that are great on digital, so I don't have too much regrets.
Overall, it's like from going to coca cola, to pepsi. Not exactly the same taste,
but you can get used to it.

But in an other hand, I think spending $350,000 on a stereo system is stupid .
Unless you have an insane amount of money to spend. And even it's the case ,
there might be wiser ways to spend such amount of money.


I'm in my late 40's, so I grew up with LPs (and eventually sprang ~$600, early 80's bucks, for an 'entry level' audiophile TT/cart).

I miss the lovely and sometimes elaborate packaging.

Other than that I don't miss anything about them.

And I don't respect Michael Fremer a lot.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Aug 17 2009, 19:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 17 2009, 19:37
Post #1349





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Ed Seedhouse @ Aug 16 2009, 02:02) *
QUOTE (carpman @ Aug 15 2009, 21:44) *
And many old people think the past was great (even if there was a bloody massacre going on at the time) - it's called nostalgia and it's an illusion. Ed Seedhouse has just described the reality.


At 65 i am old enough to remember reading articles in the 1960's about how much better the good old 78's played with thorn needles were than them danged new-fangled LPs.



For a real eye-opener, read 'Perfecting Sound Forever: An Aural History of Recorded Music' , which shows how these format debates have been with us since Edison's day.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Aug 17 2009, 19:42
Post #1350





Group: Members
Posts: 2318
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (extrabigmehdi @ Aug 16 2009, 03:40) *
Well, I remind of listening the bad album from Michael Jackson,
It was just ten time better in term of "excitement" of what I hear now on cd.
When I listen to the "bad" track on cd, it just seems "flat".
While with the vinyl, I got the feeling that sound was "moving" in the room.

I bought recently a xonar stx, high end sennheiser headphone, some great altec lansing speakers
(I mostly listen to music in front of my computer these times).
Nope, not the great excitement I got before.
Maybe my ears were damaged, or call it nostalgia...




Very likely your ears are different (they almost certainly have worse frequency response),
and with age your expectations of sound are different. So, yes , nostalgia an physiology.

That's in addition to the mastering differences. And the possibility of euphonic
distortion in the form of phase- and crosstalk-related effects that offer an illusion of
'more ambience'.

For that I prefer Dolby Pro Logic II and 5 speakers ;>
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

55 Pages V  « < 52 53 54 55 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 00:12