no I didnt, you mistakenly think I was talking to you with the rest of my post. what I specifically wasnt going to do was get into a back and forth, quoting every comment and rebutting it, that would be futile, predictable and rather boring
Being corrected on some details, within a certain mental paradigm, is one thing.
Switching from one mental paradigm to another is a different thing.
There is no limit to the number of speculations one may raise.
As for that particular test, it may serve you to read the article prior to raising wild speculations.
you seem to be having a persistent problem with reading comprehension...
or are you just being needlessly provocative?
haha, thats not subjective, its plain for all to see in your persistent picking out and overdramatized one liners that have virtually nothing to do with the actual content, but fit your diatribe quite neatly after you have reframed our responses to suit. perhaps its for effect, perhaps you really dont get it, over and over again.
your smarmy reply doesnt stop you from running in circles.
your smarmy reply doesnt stop you from running in circles.
Last edited:
That number is of course 42!
It was later discovered that the question was "What is seven times nine?"
Doh!
Chris
Yet it still remains under stated by one third . For the true seeker the question is how much is 6 time 7 ?
I repeat a story. JC sent me an LP from Dave Wilson with identical cuts with "nothing" different in the path but a 50K sampling Soundstream A/D - D/A. I, as carefully as possible, made a 24/96 recordings of each and lined them up to within +-1 sample at the start. They did not line up at all, even 6dB off at some points. My only conclusion is that something very major was missed in the process. They of course sounded identicle.
Electronic, recorded, waveforms can be full and exact representation only of the sound waves that were energizing the microphones at their specific locations.
(There is a good chance to achieve satisfactory reproduction, if you replay this recording at that same space through speakers located where the microphones were).
George
I thought it was 6 times 8. Maybe that's on the BBC serialized version for television.
Oddly, recently, in cataloging books, I finally reached the box that had my copy of the jumbo Douglas Adams compilation, and brought it back to the apartment. I knew I had it but came close to getting another copy since it wasn't turning up.
If you still have the transfers Audio DiffMaker was designed to deal with small speed errors and the like for matching different tracks for differences.
Its very hard to put biases to the side when making these judgements. An early soundstream digital processor could well have some pretty obvious errors once you learn to identify them. But those most likely would come from a well understood catalog of early digital errors. Current digital record-replay systems are capable of exceptional technical accuracy. If there are issues with them then they need to be identified with more than vague "digital is bad" arguments. Most vinyl (LP's to most who are reading this) since the mid '80s have digitally processed the signals going to the cutterhead (groove computer). Somehow though they are perceived to be better than the clean digital transfer to a digital storage medium. Is it the feedback (another bad word) in the cutterhead that makes them so good?
What is being considered as evidence in one paradigm isn't so in another paradigm.
As I wrote above, I'm yet to see even one individual switching from one paradigm to another as the result of words issued by another individual. Switching from one paradigm to another can come only from within, not by the words of others.
Thus, you aren't going to change your paradigm, no matter what I may write.
You are free to check your own paradigm, in yourself, by yourself.
Indeed.
The issue gets further complication when there are those audiophiles who listen primarily to the 'sound' of the setup, while others are interested primarily in the degree to which the reproduced music is convincing and engaging. Those two major approaches are worlds apart.
It seems to me unlikely that there would be any experienced listeners group that would be accepted by all. For instance, since I'm interested primarily in the degree to which the reproduced music is convincing and engaging, I don't care at all what is the evaluation of those who listen primarily to the 'sound' of the setup. Most probably the opposite also holds true, people from the other group, probably wouldn't care at all about the evaluation of people from the different group.
To my view, the major significance of that test is the demonstration that there is no necessary correlation between measurements results and listening evaluations.
Those who are incapable of changing their own paradigm are stuck repeating the same thing over and over with no possible change in outcome. Most people with an open mind do in fact change their own predispositions over time, whether that is caused by our own learning experiences through discovery or mistake or listening to others and allowing that information in can shift our own thinking. Only those who do the same thing over and over and expect a different result are locked into a specific paradigm that they are not willing to give up. I learn things on these threads all the time, and that means that I often have to rethink a conclusion that I have previously made. I have learned much by simply making mistakes and seeing the outcome, most of my best ah ha moments have happened after doing something that didn't work the way that I expected them to do and seeing something in a completely new light.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.