I think I found my 'end game' speaker

13

Comments

  • BlueFoxBlueFox Posts: 12,319
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    my brilliant new sig demonstrates this argument best :)

    You apparently are not aware of the concept called saracasm and/or humor. :rolleyes:
    Bud - Silicon Valley

    Lumin X1
    Sony XA-5400ES SACD
    Pass XP-22 pre, X600.5 amps
    Magico S5 MKII Mcast Rose speakers, SPOD spikes

    Shunyata Triton v3/Typhon QR on preamp, Denali 2000 (2) on amps
    Shunyata Sigma XLR analog ICs, Sigma speaker cables
    Shunyata Sigma HC (2), Sigma Analog, Sigma Digital, Z Anaconda (3) power cables

    Mapleshade Samson V.3 four shelf solid maple rack, Micropoint brass footers
    Three 20 amp circuits.
  • Big DawgBig Dawg Posts: 1,962
    edited August 2012
    Dawgfish wrote: »
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, math does not 100% explain or replicate everything that happens in nature. Part of being a good scientist is realizing that. That's why we have tolerances, statistical error, and probability. Math is only perfect in the realm of math itself. Have you ever considered the fact that technology has not advanced enough to be able to acurrately predict and measure how the human anatomy and mind interprets sound? Another thing you quickly learn in science is we still don't know much about a lot of things. Maybe one day instruments and meathods will be developed that more accurately measure how the human mind percieves sound, but at this state in time I don't think we are there. Till then and even after then, I'll trust mey ears.
    Adding to Dawg's comment....

    Just because the data says it sounds a certain way doesnt mean your ears and my ears hear it the same. You may be more sensitive to frequencies I am not, same with me...

    So just because data says it sounds good doesnt mean to you it wont sound like crap while to me it will sound like angels from heaven.....

    The variable you cannot predict or adjust for is the HUMAN EAR, hence one of my favorite sayings "It only matters how it sounds to you"

    Human perception, ear functionality, environment, associated gear, music preferences, source, recording quality, even mood, there are any number of reasons why frequency response graphs measured in anechoic chambers may not reflect the way sound is experienced by a listener when reproduced. Neutrality is the aim of a flat response curve because we think that we want our equipment to reproduce sound just as the recording engineer intended. As a unique individual, I reject the notion that there is an algorithm that knows better than I do what pants to wear, beer to drink, or to which speakers to listen. Having consistent scientific data is useful, but I would always trust what I hear over what I read.
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited August 2012
    Again, I listen with my ears, not a computer or recording device. I don't care what a 'device' says because I'm not listening with a device. I hear what I hear, and if I can reliably reproduce my results via blind testing and a device says there's no difference then the device is flawed.
  • ravaneliravaneli Posts: 530
    edited August 2012
    BlueFox wrote: »
    You apparently are not aware of the concept called saracasm and/or humor. :rolleyes:

    Me not aware of sarcasm? : ) have you read even one of my posts? : )

    That was a great one, it was the sarcasm that is precious in it. It demonstrates the spirit in which preposterous opinions are passed around here.
    BlueFox wrote: »
    I have found that tube based computers provide the best sound quality. ENIAC and MANIAC I offer a smooth, well defined and articulated sound unmatched by the current silicon based CPUs. :wink:
    But as in all things your perception is your reality.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 43,152
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli, there are plenty of places in cyberspace full of folks such as yourself where I'm sure you could find happiness sharing your lack of experience. Club Polk isn't one of those places, so take the less than subtle hint because you are not going to change one person's mind here.
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited August 2012
    It's obvious now that raveneli is just here to stir the pot, hate people like that...
  • AsSiMiLaTeDAsSiMiLaTeD Posts: 11,717
    edited August 2012
    Since rav mentioned his early posts I decided to look it up. One of his first posts on this forum was to elicit assistance in illegally copying oe sharing software. Since he brought up why he originally joined the forum I found that tidbit relevant.
  • FaceFace Posts: 14,714
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    have you come accross of a negative review of freshly purchased gear?
    Most don't and do you want to know why? How are you supposed to sell it afterwords?
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." Friedrich Nietzsche
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,620
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    And vinyl?? It is amazing that there are still people that believe that vinyl has some kind of superiority over any digital format. It's like trying to pull science out of the bible. Whatever you want to record on vinyl will always be better recorded digitally. Unless the screeching has some santimental value for you..

    My understanding is that digital recordings consist of samples (approximations) of original analog signals. What is actually amazing is that someone would think that an approximation could be better than the original thing.

    I assume you know of some scientific principle(s) which proves that an approximation is actually better than the original thing?
    ravaneli wrote: »
    Time to move on, no?

    No. I still have many excellent analog recordings that will probably never be properly and professionally transferred to digital media.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    By the way, everyone here should know that the prevailing opinions HERE do not represent AT ALL the prevailing opinion in circles that are actually qualified to make judgement, like Audio Engineering Society. You can find and read presentations of those guys. No tube bullsh1t will ever fly there, no power conditioners, no cables, no amp difference and in general nothing that can't be shown on paper.

    There is actually quite a lot of diversity of opinion within the ranks of the AES. You should not assume that the factions that make the most noise represent the majority, or even the plurality, of AES thought.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    If anything I find most of the members here severely misinformed of the opinions of actual people that have knowledge about these things.

    How is someone else's opinion going to influence what I hear from the stereo system in my living room? I mean, I am not going to like, or dislike, a piece of audio equipment based on someone else's opinion.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    Everything that we can hear can be measured, thus differences between audio equipment must be demonstrated with measurement or at least confirmed by a double blind test. Just some food for your awakening.

    What about all the medicines, invented by teams of the most highly educated professionals, that were evaluated by years of DBT's and measurements and federal government scrutiny, which then turned out to cause physical harm or even death?
    DSkip wrote: »
    Its like you're telling us how to kiss a girl when all you've ever done is hold their hand. You can't even get to first base until you experience it. Why is it so hard for you to gain a little experience? Skeer'd of cooties or something?

    Yeah.
    DSkip wrote: »
    Keep reading that dirty porno mag under your bed. That's what real sex is.....yeah.

    It's better than risking rejection.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    have you come accross of a negative review of freshly purchased gear?

    Not only have I come across negative reviews, but I have written quite a number of them.

    The purpose of an audio magazine is to inform and entertain. They aren't running a test lab along the lines of Consumer Reports.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • B RunB Run Posts: 1,896
    edited August 2012
    F1nut wrote: »
    ravaneli, there are plenty of places in cyberspace full of folks such as yourself where I'm sure you could find happiness sharing your lack of experience. Club Polk isn't one of those places, so take the less than subtle hint because you are not going to change one person's mind here.

    He's only here to piss people off and derail threads, we're all a bunch of close minded cult members here but he comes back everyday.
    Living Room: Polk Lsim705’s, Lsim 704c, SVS SB12-NSD, Yamaha Rxa-2030, Denon DBT1713, Doug's Furutech SC's, Pepster PC's, Vizio 75" 4K M Series, Airport Express

    Bedroom: 70" Vizio, Pioneer Vsx530, Boston Acoustics CR7’s

    Theater Room: BenQ HT2050a, Stewart Firehawk 110", Pioneer Elite SC63, Lsim703’s, LSiM706c, Lsim 702f/x, SVS SB12-NSD, Xbox One
  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 21,615
    edited August 2012
    What is actually amazing is that someone would think that an approximation could be better than the original thing.

    I assume you know of some scientific principle(s) which proves that an approximation is actually better than the original thing?



    This statement has zero basis in fact. Everybody knows those tree-shaped "pine" air fresheners smell much better than a real pine tree does. :razz:Don't even get me started on the superiority of canned rose scent for the bathroom vs. the real thing. After I get done in there, the can works so much better. Why can't they make a rose that can take the stress of bathroom exposure is beyond me.:mrgreen:
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, TriangleArt Reference SE with Pass Labs Xono Phono Preamp, Walker Precision Motor Drive, ClearAudio Goldfinger Diamond v2 cartridge and Origin Conquerer Mk3c tonearm, Polk Audio "Signature" Reference Series 1.2TL with complete mods, Pass Labs X0.2 three chassis preamp, PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MkII, Pioneer Elite SC-LX701, Oppo UDP-205 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk audio AB700/800 "in-wall" surrounds.

    Saying that it's "too hard" to pursue your dreams is no different than admitting to yourself that you are too lazy to achieve them.

    “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,620
    edited August 2012
    Why can't they make a rose that can take the stress of bathroom exposure is beyond me.:mrgreen:

    Making a rose of any type is beyond man's technology. The best we can do is limited manipulation of what exists in nature. However, I would like to point out that the rose is able to stand in the sun and other harsh outdoor elements, 365 days a year. That exposure is far more stressful than anything it would encounter in a household bathroom.:wink:
    Everybody knows those tree-shaped "pine" air fresheners smell much better than a real pine tree does.

    Personally, I've never smelled anything that came out of a can, or even a perfume bottle, that smelled better than the natural frangrances generated by plants. Synthetic stuff can offer some conveniece, but it is never as good as the real thing.
    Don't even get me started on the superiority of canned rose scent for the bathroom vs. the real thing. After I get done in there, the can works so much better.

    I agree that the can is superior for the application you described. However, if modern diets weren't so toxic, the can would not be needed and the rose would be sufficient.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 21,615
    edited August 2012
    And once again... no data to back your rediculous claims DK. I think you are slipping there man.:wink::razz:
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, TriangleArt Reference SE with Pass Labs Xono Phono Preamp, Walker Precision Motor Drive, ClearAudio Goldfinger Diamond v2 cartridge and Origin Conquerer Mk3c tonearm, Polk Audio "Signature" Reference Series 1.2TL with complete mods, Pass Labs X0.2 three chassis preamp, PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MkII, Pioneer Elite SC-LX701, Oppo UDP-205 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk audio AB700/800 "in-wall" surrounds.

    Saying that it's "too hard" to pursue your dreams is no different than admitting to yourself that you are too lazy to achieve them.

    “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,620
    edited August 2012
    When it comes to nature...and imitations of it...some things must be accepted on blind faith.:biggrin:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • ravaneliravaneli Posts: 530
    edited August 2012
    no data? I HAVE NO DATA!! Your entire arguments is that it's better to rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S EARS than on independent tests! NO DATA? Are you out of your mind sir? Do you follow the flow of this argument at all?? Or do u shove any jibberish because you are on the majority side and nobody is gona attack you?

    A lot of silly pointless comparisons here, some totally irrelevant, some hanging the straw man. Didn't read a single one worth a reply, it was cheap crap that you can hear in someone's garage. I do want to say a word about vinyl though.

    The notion that vinyl is the real thing and a CD or any other digital recording is a sample is quite erroneous. They BOTH differ with the real thing. The digital recording however omits only things that cannot be heard. Vinyl has far less in common with what was being recorded. Go get some facts. Are you suggesting that if we were to record some orchestra right now on both vinyl and in a CD format, the recording on vinyl would match the source closer that the CD? I mean these are not opinions here guys! You hear all kind of screetching and whatnot in a vinyl that are not present in the source. A digital recording will always, always capture the source better. Yes, not all digital recordings are the same, and the more you try to minimize the size of the recording the bigger sacrifice you make. But this is a deliberate decision so to keep the size small. There are digital recordings that can never be matched by vinyl. What professional audio studio records music on vinyl. Don't they want the best quality possible? I mean this whole thing is laughable and totally discredits anyone who stands by it.
    BlueFox wrote: »
    I have found that tube based computers provide the best sound quality. ENIAC and MANIAC I offer a smooth, well defined and articulated sound unmatched by the current silicon based CPUs. :wink:
    But as in all things your perception is your reality.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,620
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    What professional audio studio records music on vinyl.

    Recording to analog tape then transferring to vinyl disc or recording directly to vinyl disc are arcane arts, but they are still done. Since you say you like reading about the exploits of others, I'm sure you will be able to google more than a few examples.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    Don't they want the best quality possible?

    After you make a few more trips around the sun, you might come to understand that the primary thing a studio wants is a profitable operation. So, to answer your question, they, meaning most recording houses, want the most profit possible. The consumer electronics field is full of examples of lower quality products that gained wide market acceptance due to better marketing or a higher level of convenience. There is no mainstream demand for high quality music recordings, be they analog or digital. Look at how SACD was virtually ignored by the masses.
    ravaneli wrote: »
    I mean this whole thing is laughable and totally discredits anyone who stands by it.

    In light of your two questions above, I don't think you have an adequate enough grasp of the subject to objectively and accurately critique others.
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • ravaneliravaneli Posts: 530
    edited August 2012
    you are confusing what is sold with the equipment that is used for the recording process. There is no recording studio in the world that does the actual recording work on vinyl. None. That would be ridiculous. How could they have any respect? Once the recordings are done, they sell them in all formats respective to demand. But the recording process, quality cannot be sacrificed there. There is no place for tubes of any kind, no vinyl, nothing like that. The sentence that vinyl is the high quality but there is no demand for it will get you quick self humiliation in any kind of engineering or professional circles.

    I am done with this nonsense. As always I leave the last word for you, so you can bark a few more time so you don't look bad.
    BlueFox wrote: »
    I have found that tube based computers provide the best sound quality. ENIAC and MANIAC I offer a smooth, well defined and articulated sound unmatched by the current silicon based CPUs. :wink:
    But as in all things your perception is your reality.
  • F1nutF1nut Posts: 43,152
    edited August 2012
    Troll....er I mean rav, since you like Stereophile so much, read this and then flush yourself.

    http://www.stereophile.com/interviews/david_manley_tubes_logic_amp_audiophile_sound/
    Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t-u-r-d by the clean end."


    President of Club Polk

  • headrottheadrott Posts: 5,461
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    no data? I HAVE NO DATA!! Your entire arguments is that it's better to rely on SOMEONE ELSE'S EARS than on independent tests! NO DATA? Are you out of your mind sir? Do you follow the flow of this argument at all?? Or do u shove any jibberish because you are on the majority side and nobody is gona attack you?

    A lot of silly pointless comparisons here, some totally irrelevant, some hanging the straw man. Didn't read a single one worth a reply, it was cheap crap that you can hear in someone's garage. I do want to say a word about vinyl though.

    The notion that vinyl is the real thing and a CD or any other digital recording is a sample is quite erroneous. They BOTH differ with the real thing. The digital recording however omits only things that cannot be heard. Vinyl has far less in common with what was being recorded. Go get some facts. Are you suggesting that if we were to record some orchestra right now on both vinyl and in a CD format, the recording on vinyl would match the source closer that the CD? I mean these are not opinions here guys! You hear all kind of screetching and whatnot in a vinyl that are not present in the source. A digital recording will always, always capture the source better. Yes, not all digital recordings are the same, and the more you try to minimize the size of the recording the bigger sacrifice you make. But this is a deliberate decision so to keep the size small. There are digital recordings that can never be matched by vinyl. What professional audio studio records music on vinyl. Don't they want the best quality possible? I mean this whole thing is laughable and totally discredits anyone who stands by it.


    I believe the way one records in the analog realm is onto tape, not vinyl.

    The question is, what are you trying to reproduce from your stereo as being the source? I will agree that vinyl does have more inherant noise than a CD does. Of course you are not trying to produce this noise from your stereo. I don't believe anyone is arguing this. (I do also want to satate that there are vastly different amounts of noise produced from vinyl depending on gear quality, vinyl quality, and vinyl cleanliness). What you are failing to realize due to your lack of experience and/or not wanting to open yourself to the responsibilities of conceeding science and text does not tell us everything (definately not so far anyway), and what many are arguing is that vinyl IS analog and is the way the human ear hears audio. The CD format is trying to replicate the natural way we hear audio (as DK and/or John were talking about earlier with scent). You can claim that the human ear is not capable of hearing the missing information deleated from the analog source due to digital sampling. It is very evident and you even brought it up a few posts back stating that depending on how few samples are used, the digital format's sound degrades. Obviously, that is the point where it is so evident that even those saying digital format sounds exactly the same and/or better than an analog source such as vinyl have to conceed that digital cannot replicate an anlalog performance as well.

    Tone will always be replicated better in the analog format. The tone of vinyl is better than CD, although SACD comes a little closer but is still not as good. This is also why many people use tubes. They are analog and replcate the tone of a source better. The performance sounds more lifelike and real using tubes than mosfets. Again, this is a case of trying to replicate the real analog performance using analog means. Digital formats cannot replicate the analog source as well as an analog format. This is due to the number of samples used by digital formats, which is always less than analog.

    At what point would you say that all people cannot hear the jagged wave form of the sampled analog performance. How many samples does it take to replicate an analog wave form close enough or far enough from the original performance to audibly hear a difference? I cannot give it a number, but I can sure hear it. How about you? Are you ready for the responsibility of listening for these differences? If you are not, then move along and please don't try to tell us what we can or cannot hear. I know what I can hear. Obviously, I don't know what I cannot hear.
    Relayer-Big-O-Poster.jpg
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:
    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion." :\
    My response is: If you need 60 seconds to respond in one sentence, you probably should't be evaluating Polk speakers.....


    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee
  • 11tsteve11tsteve Posts: 1,173
    edited August 2012
    ravaneli wrote: »
    But the recording process, quality cannot be sacrificed there. There is no place for tubes of any kind, no vinyl, nothing like that. The sentence that vinyl is the high quality but there is no demand for it will get you quick self humiliation in any kind of engineering or professional circles.

    I am done with this nonsense. As always I leave the last word for you, so you can bark a few more time so you don't look bad.
    um, so the fact that some of the best-loved, most popular studio mics are tubed isn't important? that before the source gets anywhere near whatever recording format is being used, it has gone through a dreaded tube?
    that many studios and musicians adore tube compressors?

    you had better stop listening to music all together, because you won't be able to recognize what has or hasn't been tainted by tubes, and it might just keep you up at night when you learn how much tubed equipment some studios have.
    Polk Lsi9
    N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
    NAD 1020 completely refurbished
    Keces DA-131 mk.II
    Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
    Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2
  • nooshinjohnnooshinjohn Posts: 21,615
    edited August 2012
    11tsteve wrote: »
    um, so the fact that some of the best-loved, most popular studio mics are tubed isn't important? that before the source gets anywhere near whatever recording format is being used, it has gone through a dreaded tube?
    that many studios and musicians adore tube compressors?

    you had better stop listening to music all together, because you won't be able to recognize what has or hasn't been tainted by tubes, and it might just keep you up at night when you learn how much tubed equipment some studios have.

    Add to the list of tube gear in a recording studio the guitar amp and in many cases, the gear used for playback. Tubes are everywhere.

    Rav... stay thirsty my friend.:rolleyes:
    The Gear... Carver "Statement" Mono-blocks, TriangleArt Reference SE with Pass Labs Xono Phono Preamp, Walker Precision Motor Drive, ClearAudio Goldfinger Diamond v2 cartridge and Origin Conquerer Mk3c tonearm, Polk Audio "Signature" Reference Series 1.2TL with complete mods, Pass Labs X0.2 three chassis preamp, PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MkII, Pioneer Elite SC-LX701, Oppo UDP-205 4K Blu-ray player, Sony XBR70x850B 4k, Polk audio AB700/800 "in-wall" surrounds.

    Saying that it's "too hard" to pursue your dreams is no different than admitting to yourself that you are too lazy to achieve them.

    “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
  • steveinazsteveinaz Posts: 19,085
    edited August 2012
    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. ;)
    Source: Bluesound Node 2i - Preamp/DAC: Benchmark DAC2 DX - Amplifier: Parasound Halo A21 - Speakers: PSB Imagine T2
  • Erik TracyErik Tracy Posts: 4,691
    edited August 2012
    steveinaz wrote: »
    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. ;)

    There's always AVS - he'd be right at home over there.

    H9: If you don't trust what you are hearing, then maybe you need to be less invested in a hobby which all the pleasure comes from listening to music.
  • cnhcnh Posts: 13,310
    edited August 2012
    I can't believe I've "missed" all this "fun"?

    Let's go back to an example from Math, shall we? I am not a mathematician but I did spend the requisite time in Calculus classes as an Undergrad, back in the day. And if I remember correctly, the entire purpose of this form of math is to approximate what happens in the real world by using formulas and integers and pushing them to infinite limits. Let's take Integration. If you want to find the AREA under a curve (analog) you do so by envisioning a number of rectangular shapes that touch the curves surface but do not take into account the entire area under it. You can easily calculate the area of each rectangle and as you increase the number of rectangles under the curve they get smaller and smaller in width until they reach the limit of no width (an infinite limit of rectangles under the curve then presents us with a smooth wave-curve that is a fairly true representation of the original curve and the area under that curve.

    Now if you take this idea and apply it to digital vs. analog you can analogize. Take an SACD vs a CD. And SACD is like doing the above. It approximates the curve better than the CD everything else being equal. And why is that important? Because the original is a continuous wave not a discrete bundle of information.

    As someone mentioned above math is an approximation of reality except where it is "purely" theoretical in which case it becomes Platonic, i.e.,, deals with ideal timeless forms that are perfect and found nowhere in the real world. Which is one reason why Plato valued abstract mathematics in the process of educating his citizenry so much. Where is the "perfect" circle, the "perfect" triangle, parallel lines that "never" intersect each other even over an infinite distance? It's mostly where Plato put it: in the MIND.

    So it's not just that we discount experience but that we also discount what Math actually is, does. Neither experience with equipment nor math and science do we seem to have.

    And this coming from a social scientist, where without "experience" we can understand, come to terms with nothing! This is why discussions about Foreign Affairs or Global Economics or ahistorical descriptions of the workings of Capitalism and other economic systems lead to endless debates because human "activity" needs to be "contextualized", you can not speak about abstract markets and supply and demand, etc. as though there are NO history(ies), no exceptions, no "humans" involved. And the problem with humans is that they are NOT always rational, they are governed by psychological, sociological and cultural forces that intrude into both economic systems and transactions and any other arena where humans interact with each other.

    Sorry for the aside. But my Science would be meaningless if I reasoned like some here. Subjectivity is perhaps the most important dimension that has to be considered in the social sciences. And as we know, even in the Hard Sciences, observation often affects outcome!
    They are always "confounding" variables that spoil our idealistic musings of how things work or should!

    So Science and Subjectivity? An inescapable combination, conundrum and sometimes a boon!

    This is not to say there is no objectivity but rather that the reality is more of a human one, a dialectic of subjectivity and objectivity. Where we're constantly checking one against the other and unable to completely "separate" the two.

    cnh
    Currently orbiting Bowie's Blackstar.!

    Polk Lsi-7s, Def Tech 8" sub, HK 3490, HK HD 990 (CDP/DAC), AKG Q701s
    [sig. changed on a monthly basis as I rotate in and out of my stash]
  • SCompRacerSCompRacer Posts: 7,195
    edited August 2012
    Thanks rav for the enlightenment. I just put all my vinyl, turntables and tube gear on the curb and ordered some cheap stuff.


    NOT!:biggrin:


    sky-is-falling.jpg
    Make yourself necessary to someone. Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Salk SoundScape 8's * Audio Research Reference 3 * Bottlehead Eros Phono * Park's Audio Budgie SUT * Krell KSA-250 * Harmonic Technology Pro 9+ & Pro 11+ * Signature Series Sonore Music Server w/Deux PS* Twisted Pear Buffalo III Dual Mono ESS Sabre32 DAC * Heavy Plinth Lenco L75 Idler Drive * AA MG-1 Linear Air Bearing Arm * AT33PTG/II & Denon 103R * Richard Gray 600S * NHT B-12d subs * GIK Acoustic Treatments * Sennheiser HD650 *

  • tonybtonyb Posts: 31,660
    edited August 2012
    I guess Rav also doesn't realize that most musicians still have turntables at home for their personal listening, that should say something.

    Tubes don't belong in a recording studio....lmfao !!
    HT SYSTEM-
    Sony 850c 4k
    Pioneer elite vhx 21
    Sony 4k BRP
    SVS SB-2000
    Polk Sig. 20's
    Polk FX500 surrounds

    Cables-
    Acoustic zen Satori speaker cables
    Acoustic zen Matrix 2 IC's
    Wireworld eclipse 7 ic's
    Audio metallurgy ga-o digital cable

    Kitchen

    Sonos zp90
    Grant Fidelity tube dac
    B&k 1430
    Tad 803 speakers
  • rebuyrebuy Posts: 721
    edited August 2012
    She Blinded me with Science.
  • DarqueKnightDarqueKnight Posts: 6,620
    edited August 2012
    My apologies to AsSiMiLaTeD for my part in the thread derail.:sad:
    "So hot it burns Mice!"~DK
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK
    "Those who irrationally rail against something or someone that is no threat to them, actually desire (or desire to be like) the thing or person they are railing against."~DK
  • drumminmandrumminman Posts: 3,372
    edited August 2012
    steveinaz wrote: »
    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. ;)

    The aphorism as I've heard it is "you can lead a hor-ti-culture, but you can't make her think" :cheesygrin:
    "Science is suppose to explain observations not dismiss them as impossible" - Norm on AA; 2.3TL's w/sonicaps/mills/jantzen inductors, Gimpod's boards, Lg Solen SDA inductors, RD-0198's, MW's dynamatted, Armaflex speaker gaskets, H-nuts, brass spikes, Cardas CCGR BP's, upgraded IC Cable, Black Hole Damping Sheet strips, interior of cabinets sealed with Loctite Power Grab, AI-1 interface with 1000VA A-L transformer
  • 11tsteve11tsteve Posts: 1,173
    edited August 2012
    Not to mention the thousands and thousands of buyers who have driven vinyl sales to its highest amount in the last 20 years. An old bandmate of mine is currently pressing his latest release as a double vinyl as well as a cd. I should tell him to stop because analog recordings suck.
    Polk Lsi9
    N.E.W. A-20 class A 20W
    NAD 1020 completely refurbished
    Keces DA-131 mk.II
    Analysis Plus Copper Oval, Douglass, Morrow SUB3, Huffman Digital
    Paradigm DSP-3100 v.2
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!