I have a friend with 6 dead bottles of 1969 DRC Richbourg, please send your secret.
Hi,
Conventional engineers have no way of telling how you as an individual will perceive music.
We all perceive music in a different way and will do so depending on a number of factors. Be that social status or the amount of alcohol we consumed.
It will always vary. Always.
Science is your anchor. You and me are the perceptors. Science may well create the perfect copy of a recording and it probably can. Science does not vary much, we however do.
Ciao,
Conventional engineers have no way of telling how you as an individual will perceive music.
We all perceive music in a different way and will do so depending on a number of factors. Be that social status or the amount of alcohol we consumed.
It will always vary. Always.
Science is your anchor. You and me are the perceptors. Science may well create the perfect copy of a recording and it probably can. Science does not vary much, we however do.
Ciao,
Hi,
Let's just hope that believing in measurements and measurements only is no more harmful than believing in any kind of belief system.
Science is not carved in stone, it evolves. Eventually.
Few scientists have the proverbial "balls" to admit they were wrong which proves they're human, shortsighted and as far as I'm concerned utterly stupid in sticking their necks out in the first place....
Ciao,
Really Frank?
Lets start at the top... science is not a belief system in the normally understood meaning of the phrase. By that I mean a system where there are articles of faith (hope I don't stray into religious topics here...). Faith being belief in the unproven and/or unprovable.
If you understand the reason something occurs by observing and measuring it in a logical and consistent manner you are far less likely to do damage to it, or to believe the wrong thing..
If you do not understand either by choice or by not using a logical and consistent measurement system, then you are highly likely to have a detrimental outcome.
Yes science and its knowledge base evolves based on new findings and understandings. This is one of its strengths - and in fact is probably the basic identifier of science. The fact that it does so slowly is not the negative you imply it to be. The process of scientific discovery has a series of checks and balances that ensure outcomes are valid as they are understood at the time. This takes time. It also protects against more "faith-like" wild swings in understanding.
Unsure what your sample group is for your widely dismissive last statement. Lets just say that unless you are able to substantiate it, your faith-based claim is as derogatory and offensive (not to mention probably wrong) as many faith based claims disparaging other faiths...
Ciao back at you!
Hi,
Conventional engineers have no way of telling how you as an individual will perceive music.
Science does not vary much, we however do.
Ciao,
All true, but unfortunately for you, engineers =/= scientists.
Scientists with backgound in psychology and neuroscience could likely predict very closely what perceptions you would take from a specific style or even piece of music.
Its a matter of applying the correct branch science and applying it correctly.
Faith possibly has difficulty with that as a concept since faith tends to be dogmatic.
Hi,
Yes, really.
And with all your arguments you simply confirm it.
Science, by its very nature is always lagging behind. Fact.
Ciao,
Lagging behind absolute and complete knowledge, perhaps, but with a far better understanding of what it DOESN'T know and the integrity to state that.
If there is a big problem with faith its exactly that - it doesn't know what it doesn't know and it continues to claim that it knows regardless.
Haere ra!
Hi,
Conventional engineers have no way of telling how you as an individual will perceive music.
We all perceive music in a different way and will do so depending on a number of factors. Be that social status or the amount of alcohol we consumed.
It will always vary. Always.
Science is your anchor. You and me are the perceptors. Science may well create the perfect copy of a recording and it probably can. Science does not vary much, we however do.
Ciao,
i find this to be very true....
Hi,
Yes, really.
And with all your arguments you simply confirm it.
Science, by its very nature is always lagging behind. Fact.
Ciao,
Yes, we experienced that time dilation existed long before Einstein ever came up with his little theory, or let's not forget about Higgs and his funny particle. We knew there was gravity all along.
Last edited:
Yes and no. Science is based on maths, which includes unprovable truths. Faith can be based on evidence, which is convincing yet falls short of proof. The difference between them is not quite as great as is sometimes claimed.aardvarkash10 said:
To go further than this would invite attention from the mods.
A few miles from where I live, at the north-west end of Siccar point, James Hutton investigated the ‘unconformity’ of the sea cliffs – where other Silurian greywacke rock overrides younger fossil bearing Devonian rock.
His work was to confound the belief of the church and Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that God created the world 6,000 years before.
Hutton was wildly derided and discredited by the church for his conclusions that the ‘world’ was very much older than 6,000 years (and that the secrets of time lay in the rocks, not in the Divine Creation). More importantly, it was Hutton’s work which inspired Charles Darwin’s work of the Origin of the Species, [a work which was also inspired by Alfred Russell Wallace].
Hutton's work has long been accepted as valid by the scientific community.
The point is that until Hutton developed his theory, much of science was, for many thousands of years, based on a false premise. It is well within the bounds of realistic possibility that similar 'unconformities' exist in other fields of science.
His work was to confound the belief of the church and Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that God created the world 6,000 years before.
Hutton was wildly derided and discredited by the church for his conclusions that the ‘world’ was very much older than 6,000 years (and that the secrets of time lay in the rocks, not in the Divine Creation). More importantly, it was Hutton’s work which inspired Charles Darwin’s work of the Origin of the Species, [a work which was also inspired by Alfred Russell Wallace].
Hutton's work has long been accepted as valid by the scientific community.
The point is that until Hutton developed his theory, much of science was, for many thousands of years, based on a false premise. It is well within the bounds of realistic possibility that similar 'unconformities' exist in other fields of science.
Yes, but not in the field of amplification and conduction of audio frequency signals, unless we find out that electrical signals have some hitherto unknown quality such as polarization, just to mention an oddball possibility. Not even the faintest clue of that.
Yes, we may find out tomorrow that the earth is a cube.
There are things which are uncertain where our understanding is tentative and things which are extremely well-known and unlikely to be displaced (see: correspondence). Given the enormous amount of evidence that we can trivially design and produce audibly transparent electronics and the total lack of any solid evidence that we can't, it's most likely that we're in the latter when it comes to audio (with the uncertain parts being transducers, rooms, formats, not wires and capacitors)
There are things which are uncertain where our understanding is tentative and things which are extremely well-known and unlikely to be displaced (see: correspondence). Given the enormous amount of evidence that we can trivially design and produce audibly transparent electronics and the total lack of any solid evidence that we can't, it's most likely that we're in the latter when it comes to audio (with the uncertain parts being transducers, rooms, formats, not wires and capacitors)
The Earth is an oblate spheroid. That we know; what we dont know is how much, if at all, its shape or dimensions have changed over the millenniums of its history. Whilst I agree that it may never become a cube, I do believe that it continues to change. I agree that there is a lot of good electronics out there and even venture that any vast improvement is unlikely given an unchanging Bill of (Possible) Materials that substantial improvement is unlikely any time soon.
That said, I do believe that most of the so called better designs which I have heard sound either thin and unimpressive or fat and bloated despite the fact that they (supposedly) measure well.
Music is meant to involve the senses - including provocation of emotional response - but there is so much highly lauded stuff (from a technical viewpoint) out there which provokes in me no more than a desire to use the off switch.
From this experience I can only conclude that there is much more to human hearing and psychoacoustics than meets the requirement of better instrumentation to measure the components of an audio chain. Good design which sounds good is - I believe - as much an art (or, perhaps, craft) as it is a scientific skill.
That said, I do believe that most of the so called better designs which I have heard sound either thin and unimpressive or fat and bloated despite the fact that they (supposedly) measure well.
Music is meant to involve the senses - including provocation of emotional response - but there is so much highly lauded stuff (from a technical viewpoint) out there which provokes in me no more than a desire to use the off switch.
From this experience I can only conclude that there is much more to human hearing and psychoacoustics than meets the requirement of better instrumentation to measure the components of an audio chain. Good design which sounds good is - I believe - as much an art (or, perhaps, craft) as it is a scientific skill.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.