There is asymmetry in bilateral brain behaviour.
Left side tends to do stuff that focuses.
Right side tends to do stuff that generalizes or synthesizes.
These are strong tendencies but not exclusive.
Evolutionary forces made these tendencies. It`s clear focusing is useful but too much focus puts organism in danger, and also leaves it to miss opportunities that present themselves. If organism is to both survive and exploit focusing it must also have a watchfulness component `surveying` physical and social environment for danger, opportunities, novelty.
It`s not surprising that bilaterally symmetrical creatures have compartmentalized, (but not completely), these somewhat exclusive functions in different hemispheres.
It`s interesting to consider how these exclusive functions communicate and how and why we pay attention to them.
Left side tends to do stuff that focuses.
Right side tends to do stuff that generalizes or synthesizes.
These are strong tendencies but not exclusive.
Evolutionary forces made these tendencies. It`s clear focusing is useful but too much focus puts organism in danger, and also leaves it to miss opportunities that present themselves. If organism is to both survive and exploit focusing it must also have a watchfulness component `surveying` physical and social environment for danger, opportunities, novelty.
It`s not surprising that bilaterally symmetrical creatures have compartmentalized, (but not completely), these somewhat exclusive functions in different hemispheres.
It`s interesting to consider how these exclusive functions communicate and how and why we pay attention to them.
Sy,
That would be the back side or front side depending on your predilection. You aren't kidding about UCSB, I lived about a mile from there and rode my bike through Isla Vista on my way to Santa Barbara. At the same time there are some really smart women going to that school, they had a great robotics program if I remember correctly.
That would be the back side or front side depending on your predilection. You aren't kidding about UCSB, I lived about a mile from there and rode my bike through Isla Vista on my way to Santa Barbara. At the same time there are some really smart women going to that school, they had a great robotics program if I remember correctly.
Too late for that. I saved for years my notebook from Millie Dresselhaus's class where I nodded off and just ran off the bottom of the page. A brilliant woman who helped me escape from MIT. End of term conversation, "Do you need this course to graduate", "Yes" , "OK, then don't ever try to be a physicist", "No problem" .
Last edited:
We aim to please, I noticed this weekend that some urinals come with a little fly to target just to minimize badness if you know what I mean.
That I like.
Actually it was a sincere question. My company just bought a race car (a 944). I knew John drove a Porsche but I couldn't remember what model. Was just curious.
se
Hey John, once again this thread moves at lightening speed so this is ancient history, but I wanted to respond.
From my offbeat experience, the ability to resolve low level detail is what makes the difference here. Analog recordings have the capacity for an incredible amount of low level information to be encoded into the grooves. Its only with the current hi-rez digital that some of the information buried deep in this underestimated part of the envelope is being retained.
There are so many clues as to the importance of this that I'm surprized that more attention has not been put into understanding how well circuitry resolves the fine stuff in the presence of more dominant signals! Most measurements excercise the circuits at the performance extremes.
Past resources available to listen deep into the music have been to turn the volume up to bring out the lower level detail, often with less than pleasant results. There is quite a bit to be learned by listening to the integrity of of music buried in the background, The stuff supporting all of the front and center aspects of a recording. The cool thing about analog is that the signal is intact and there is the capability to resolve information often below the noise floor and around it's artifacts. So the information is there.
Digital is reassembled analog and it historically scrambles and introduces odd noise signatures in this portion of the dynamic spectrum and maybe it all doesn't quite all fit together as well. Obscurring the low-end of the spectrum turns the music flat and uninvolving
Just some thoughts from the cheap seats. Mike
wow talk about getting everything totally backwards regarding analog vs digital.
Precisely so. But why digital often 'fails' is nothing to do with the medium per se, but a classic, playback, distortion behaviour - using high res encodings is not the answer, it merely allows the electronics to behave themselves a bit better oftentimes; Redbook is perfectly sufficient but inadequate implementations of the reproducing hardware make a mess of the low level information - which is there, with full integrity, but poorly handled in the playback processing.
Last edited:
Only a secret to those who don't know what the phrase "Search this Thread" means - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...rch-preamplifier-part-ii-138.html#post1928781
- Status
- Not open for further replies.