This is getting sillier and sillier, Getting me to pay $60 for and Aussie red, now there's a challenge.
Where to sell it, and for how much.
Don't think I'm of much help there, most of the effects are lost after the electricity gets shut off.
A number of different error correcting systems. (Depends on how one looks at it, I suppose).
The read and encode electronics are a little behind, though.
In a more technical vein, it could be that some of the most basic underlying premises of out math conceptions don't exactly correspond to the fundamental nature of reality. For example, we are taught in school about infinity and that there are an infinite number of points between any two points, etc. Actually, it's not really clear, and may never be, if the universe and the basic fabric of space are analog or quantized down at Planck scale. We do at least know there are problems with our present notions of causality and locality, and kind of just waiting for some breakthrough in physics to occur before we can know more.
I mention these things in part to illustrate that relationship between reality and our beliefs is less certain than is warranted by our confidence that we know what's real and what isn't. It isn't just people who imagine hearing things that aren't there who do this. Everybody does it in some way or other, and all the time. And everybody thinks they are being more reasonable than everybody else in deciding what is justified to feel confident about. Ha!
Hope that helps clarify where we are with analog and digital.
I mention these things in part to illustrate that relationship between reality and our beliefs is less certain than is warranted by our confidence that we know what's real and what isn't. It isn't just people who imagine hearing things that aren't there who do this. Everybody does it in some way or other, and all the time. And everybody thinks they are being more reasonable than everybody else in deciding what is justified to feel confident about. Ha!
Hope that helps clarify where we are with analog and digital.
There's a happy medium between letting everything hang out knowledge-wise, where anything goes with/without plausibility (which is where your sensitivity to derision seems to always complain from), and being honest enough to say, "I don't know". There's also a huge middle ground where it's probably best said, "there may be an effect, but the likelihood of it being large is, well, very very small"
Regarding derision, I don't like to name calling, shaming, efforts to make others appear as fools, or similar behavior to shut up people who have different opinions. If someone just wants to be funny in a way everybody can enjoy and not at the expense of some particular individual or group, and can otherwise pull it off as humor, fine. Self depreciating humor should not be a problem.
Regarding noting that likelihood may be very small is fine, if true. It's also seemingly unlikely that humans would be here on earth communicating on an internet forum. Yet here we are. However, I think we would probably agree that not every assertion of what is real should be weighted equally. To me, the best way we have to know what is real is in terms of it's usefulness to accurately predict the future. I can't think of any other test that let's nature reveal what reality actually is, independently as possible from our own biases, opinions, and beliefs.
I'm one of those guys that 'hears things'. This has been an advantage for me, since I first chose different acoustic guitars starting almost 60 years ago. When it came to audio reproduction, I found that I could also hear differences in audio equipment, and it allowed me to more easily differentiate between different brands at hi fi shows. For example, in 1965, I remember going to a hi fi show where the JBL exhibit sounded really bright and lousy, the Mac exhibit was somewhat better, but finally I heard audio quality at a British Tannoy exhibit. The amp was hidden, so I asked what it was. I was told it was a Marantz 9 in triode mode. Yes, there is consistency in what works in audio design.
Yes, SY thinks 'I hear things that are not there'. Yet, I have been able to use my hearing to make better audio products. AND I have found that when I get lazy, and only rely on measurements, I sometimes get myself into trouble, sonically. Not just with my colleagues, but with audio reviewers. How do you think that I have virtually everything that I am currently designing for Parasound have an A rating? We don't even advertise in the magazine, (anymore). The reviewers personally hardly know me, except for a few words exchanged at audio event once in a while. I have 'hung out' more with SY or Scott Wurcer than any of the reviewers who are giving me A ratings. No, it is because I take personal charge of the products with my name on them, and make sure that they sound OK. I run 'scared' if I cannot sonically evaluate (use the product and evaluate by own ears) my designs, even if they measure OK. Works for me!
Last edited:
I watched two documentaries on iTunes about sommeliers and how they prepare for the top level exam and tasting tests they need to get through to get the 'Master Sommelier' rating. Pretty damn intense I can tell you. Typically its a 2-3 year journey after you have already qualified as a sommelier.
However, what wine, the only wine EVER to score 100 out of 100 by a few of these highly qualified people - Robert Parker in this instance?
It was a Penfolds http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/penfolds-grange-2008-scores-100/story-fneuz92c-1226591240643
Like audio, there is a fair amount of b.s. around wine . . . (ok, double entendre there for you Mark)
However, what wine, the only wine EVER to score 100 out of 100 by a few of these highly qualified people - Robert Parker in this instance?
It was a Penfolds http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/penfolds-grange-2008-scores-100/story-fneuz92c-1226591240643
Like audio, there is a fair amount of b.s. around wine . . . (ok, double entendre there for you Mark)
Last edited:
Double Entendre
noun
a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.
synonyms: ambiguity, double meaning, innuendo, play on words
"much of the comedy is derived from racy double entendres"
Simile
noun
a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).
Last edited:
Parker (whom I've known and tasted with) is popular amongst collectors, but is not exactly universally well-regarded. I have stories...
In any case, he has given out lots of 100 point scores, including at least one wine that I "designed" to get a 100 point Parker score.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.