Sheldon
Except for the "add subtle flavors " part I can agree. There is a wide path for subjective impression WHEN the playback is very bad. "How bad is bad" is always quite difficult to define and anyone doing psychoacoustic studies will tell you that there is far more deviation on "bad" than on "good". People generally seem to agree quite well on what's "good" but deviate quite substantially on "how bad is bad".
My point is that it is clear, to me at least, that as the playback systems get better and better there will be a convergence on what is "good sound" and the "subjectivist" aspect of evaluation will diminish more and more. That is, of course, only true while reality is in force. WHen one can hear things that aren't really there, like wires, then there is no limit to how wide the subjective responses can vary, because they aren't based on anything real.
To me all the really good systems sound quite a lot alike - and you know, not surprisingly, they all sounded just like the source material!! What do you know about that!
The taste for "subtle flavors" will be widely variant and fleeting in time and with the source, and hence, will not be tractable in the actual product itself in the long run. This will likely necessitate the ellimination of these "flavors" in the product and left for the end user in their specific application.
Except for the "add subtle flavors " part I can agree. There is a wide path for subjective impression WHEN the playback is very bad. "How bad is bad" is always quite difficult to define and anyone doing psychoacoustic studies will tell you that there is far more deviation on "bad" than on "good". People generally seem to agree quite well on what's "good" but deviate quite substantially on "how bad is bad".
My point is that it is clear, to me at least, that as the playback systems get better and better there will be a convergence on what is "good sound" and the "subjectivist" aspect of evaluation will diminish more and more. That is, of course, only true while reality is in force. WHen one can hear things that aren't really there, like wires, then there is no limit to how wide the subjective responses can vary, because they aren't based on anything real.
To me all the really good systems sound quite a lot alike - and you know, not surprisingly, they all sounded just like the source material!! What do you know about that!
The taste for "subtle flavors" will be widely variant and fleeting in time and with the source, and hence, will not be tractable in the actual product itself in the long run. This will likely necessitate the ellimination of these "flavors" in the product and left for the end user in their specific application.
Sheldon said:
Hy,
My recent rebuild speakers do a georgious job in presenting a perfect STEREO image as can be. It's a very-big-mid && horn/waveguide type from Italy ;-) JBL and more recently Geddes are right. But still it bothers me to listen that concentrated as STEREO affords it for its original design.
My caveat was addressed against the aiming for an illusionary perfection that many are after. Audio will in the end never be "as being there". This thread has wasted tons of time on fooling Yourselves. Double meaning: fool yourself in believing that there is "something behind" that has to be revealed, bearing galaxies of doubt and desperation. Trying to fool yourself with audio as a switch-on-illusion.
Audio is a quite simple (!) technology. It gives the opportunity to check out some music. But You will never be there. It's more an abstraction like a fotography, a film at best. That for is has to be taken within its limitations. The listening facility should support the standards, room treatment, levels etc. It's a technical issue, nothing more.
I DO want to know what come after that ARIEL.
Particle physics is not my field, but I believe that Tachyons are hypothetical, because they "could" happen, but that we could never detect them. Yes, relativity, strictly speaking only restricts things from crossing the speed of light boundary, not being on either side. Much like time is not restricted to only go forward, its just that particles that are going reverse in time are not in our same "domain" so to speak - they are anti-particles.
gedlee said:
No - don't think so.
There are different takes on the subject as can be read.
The culprit is that there still is no validated measurement of the trans light speed.
Telling us that it is at least 10 000 times faster than light - if there is signalling at all - does not really help.
Once this speed involved has been measured - which may require much much longer distances due to limited time resolution of gear – we will know that there is speed involved.
Infinite speed isn't speed at all.
Until then nobody can be sure – except for all non-experts that are allowed to speculate like hell !
A several years in future we might find either of our positions as the more valid one....
Michael
What??!?!
I'm from only about 50kms away from that! Na grüssdi
The earth is really a small place
By the way, on the faster-than-speed-of-light: in fact the whole thing is pretty simple, while certainly not so simple (or intuitive) to understand. One entangles say 2 electrons, such that the total spin quantum number is a known quantity. However the individual spins are not known, only the sum of both electrons. Quantum mechanics conclude that while the sum of spins is defined, the individual spins settle only on measuring the electron's spin. So while one can depart the 2 electrons from eachother (individual spins still unknown) in the moment one measures one of them, its spin is set and since the total spin is a conserved quantity, the other, the not-measured and departed one, electron gets also its spin defined.
As it was shown that there are no hidden variables (such that in some form the individual spin is already set in a hidden way) this exchange of information happens instantly.
Have fun, Hannes
h_a said:
... and so is it with audio. Many so called audiophiles argue about this and that, some TERMENDOUS important things with audio still hidden, example given the need for real hyper thermofrosted clean electrons, cables that will convert those undiciplined rough guys to myonic bosones, full spin, for the sake of original purity with "music" in quantumchromatic confinement in full bloom, that is <rude word>.
Good audio is never intended as an illusion of "being there". Not at least that is the reason for not "being there". That easy.
BTW: what kind of information is it with entangled spins or whatever? How would You encode a Star Trek episode into a row of entangled spins? I'm sure people working in that field know about the weaknesses of the idea. Most probably they are no audiophiles for some reason.
Quotes from Dr. Zelinger himself:
Anton Zeilinger: Because it gives the wrong impression of my work. "Beaming" exists only in science fiction films, where it was invented as a money-saving device. Actually having to land on all those planets runs up huge production costs. Beaming is cheaper: 1,2,3 and you're somewhere else. But that's a long way from anything we're doing here.
....
The effect has so far been proved across a distance of a hundred kilometres. The amazing thing is that there can be no exchange of information between the two particles. They react absolutely in synch, although they could could never know anything of each other's existence. You can think of it as two dice far away from each other that always land on the same number, without there being any kind of mechanism which connects them.
(My comment) There also has independently been some recent work on the equivalence of information and energy which is gaining acceptance. So Hannes is is important to make the distinction the spins are properties of the entangled pair, the spin detected on one is not knowable a priory (i.e. random) so you can not set one to "zero" to communicate a "one" instantaneously to the other.
Anton Zeilinger: Because it gives the wrong impression of my work. "Beaming" exists only in science fiction films, where it was invented as a money-saving device. Actually having to land on all those planets runs up huge production costs. Beaming is cheaper: 1,2,3 and you're somewhere else. But that's a long way from anything we're doing here.
....
The effect has so far been proved across a distance of a hundred kilometres. The amazing thing is that there can be no exchange of information between the two particles. They react absolutely in synch, although they could could never know anything of each other's existence. You can think of it as two dice far away from each other that always land on the same number, without there being any kind of mechanism which connects them.
(My comment) There also has independently been some recent work on the equivalence of information and energy which is gaining acceptance. So Hannes is is important to make the distinction the spins are properties of the entangled pair, the spin detected on one is not knowable a priory (i.e. random) so you can not set one to "zero" to communicate a "one" instantaneously to the other.
Hi Scott,
you probably fear I could know a few people from there and tell old family secrets?
Don't worry
No need to tell me that the spins cannot be intentionally chosen, I'm well aware of that. Indeed, my previous post lets this point perfectly open.
The main application* for all of that would secure communication as it is perfectly impossible to manipulate the communication between the 2 points as the electrons would be immediately affected.
Have fun, Hannes
*there are also some ideas for usage in a quantum computer, but that's really science fiction at the moment.
you probably fear I could know a few people from there and tell old family secrets?
Don't worry
No need to tell me that the spins cannot be intentionally chosen, I'm well aware of that. Indeed, my previous post lets this point perfectly open.
The main application* for all of that would secure communication as it is perfectly impossible to manipulate the communication between the 2 points as the electrons would be immediately affected.
Have fun, Hannes
*there are also some ideas for usage in a quantum computer, but that's really science fiction at the moment.
...
Re Zeilinger, "there is no exchange of information." That's possibly true in one sense, but think it through. For entanglement to work, information must be active non-locally, and any changes in information (polarization registered here) must "cause" changes in material formation (polarization registerable or registered there) beyond the speed of light. So talking about entanglement in "exchange" language doesn't cut it. It's a poor form of theorizing.
Re Zeilinger, "there is no exchange of information." That's possibly true in one sense, but think it through. For entanglement to work, information must be active non-locally, and any changes in information (polarization registered here) must "cause" changes in material formation (polarization registerable or registered there) beyond the speed of light. So talking about entanglement in "exchange" language doesn't cut it. It's a poor form of theorizing.
Getting some more measurement data from far-flung contributors.
Been recovering from either out-of-season flu or H1N1 - don't know which, since the doc wouldn't test for it. Whatever it is, it's very communicable - I got it from a guest at our house that hacked and coughed their way through a movie we were watching, then I was foolish enough to sit in their chair an hour after they left. That did it.
The moral: it may seem rude, but don't let guests with coughs into your house. Tell 'em to go away until they are better. If you're traveling by air, think seriously about getting an N95-rated mask before breathing recirculated air for several hours. I'm avoiding socializing or crowds until I am 100% better.
The whole thing took about two weeks, and I'm mostly over it now, thank goodness. As of today, about 95% recovered. Will re-start my exercise program Thursday.
Been recovering from either out-of-season flu or H1N1 - don't know which, since the doc wouldn't test for it. Whatever it is, it's very communicable - I got it from a guest at our house that hacked and coughed their way through a movie we were watching, then I was foolish enough to sit in their chair an hour after they left. That did it.
The moral: it may seem rude, but don't let guests with coughs into your house. Tell 'em to go away until they are better. If you're traveling by air, think seriously about getting an N95-rated mask before breathing recirculated air for several hours. I'm avoiding socializing or crowds until I am 100% better.
The whole thing took about two weeks, and I'm mostly over it now, thank goodness. As of today, about 95% recovered. Will re-start my exercise program Thursday.
Re: ...
It is a very non-intuitive concept, yes. The philosohpical meaning of "information" and cause and effect are at the root of it. I don't pretend to understand, but one explanation offered it that the wave functions that define existance exist everywhere simultaneously. This does not help, I know. For now it is enough that you can not send any information (data, etc.) at super-luminal speed. Or one more look at it, if you entangle anything to do anything useful you have to transport part of it to the other place anyway at sub-luminal speed. The entangled photons in the experiment had to travel to the other end normally before the experiment could be done.
serengetiplains said:
It is a very non-intuitive concept, yes. The philosohpical meaning of "information" and cause and effect are at the root of it. I don't pretend to understand, but one explanation offered it that the wave functions that define existance exist everywhere simultaneously. This does not help, I know. For now it is enough that you can not send any information (data, etc.) at super-luminal speed. Or one more look at it, if you entangle anything to do anything useful you have to transport part of it to the other place anyway at sub-luminal speed. The entangled photons in the experiment had to travel to the other end normally before the experiment could be done.
Uh, what?
I wouldn't go so far to say the all sound is mixed on constant directivity designs.
I am no sound engineer, but all studios (broadcasting and recording) I've come across so far in soon 20 years of musicianship in various part time projects, I've yet not seen a single one where anything else than regular dynamic speakers (may it be active or passive) has been used for monitoring.
Cheers
xpert said:
I wouldn't go so far to say the all sound is mixed on constant directivity designs.
I am no sound engineer, but all studios (broadcasting and recording) I've come across so far in soon 20 years of musicianship in various part time projects, I've yet not seen a single one where anything else than regular dynamic speakers (may it be active or passive) has been used for monitoring.
Cheers
Re: Re: ...
Hi,
Exacting. One has to write it down in the equations of Quantum Electro Dynamics and analyze the situation.
An other way is to debate a thing without to much effort taking in thinking, reading, proof. Exactly what many people are on when they talk about the qualification of audio gear. What s counter-business and counter-phoney here is, there is no perfection, there is no "being there", there are no "hidden variables" of sonic excellence. It's the same as with Quantum Dynamics, it lies down Your feet: Take it as it is!
so long
ps: regarding Zeitlinger we already know that relativity and QM are at odds, example given virtual bosons breaking conservation of energy ...
scott wurcer said:
Hi,
Exacting. One has to write it down in the equations of Quantum Electro Dynamics and analyze the situation.
An other way is to debate a thing without to much effort taking in thinking, reading, proof. Exactly what many people are on when they talk about the qualification of audio gear. What s counter-business and counter-phoney here is, there is no perfection, there is no "being there", there are no "hidden variables" of sonic excellence. It's the same as with Quantum Dynamics, it lies down Your feet: Take it as it is!
so long
ps: regarding Zeitlinger we already know that relativity and QM are at odds, example given virtual bosons breaking conservation of energy ...
soongsc said:
Than's a good way to keep the numbers down.
Uh, yes. It did occur to me at the time. The doc wouldn't give me the test (a simple nasal swab) unless I had just returned from Mexico. But then we look at the latest CDC page, scroll past the graphics, and note the phrase "About half of all influenza viruses being detected are novel H1N1 viruses." So yes, it's out there and growing fast.
The guest who had given it to me was sick for the usual two weeks, and before that had been in California to attend a South Indian wedding party. So the vector, as usual, was air travel and a social get-together.
What particularly disgusted/dismayed me was an idle curiosity on my part to research the origins of the 1918 pandemic. One theory holds it originated in Kansas, and was spread by military camps and crowded troop trains. The novel feature was that it hit people in their 20's through 40's hardest, unlike the usual bathtub curves of youngest and oldest. This was due to a "cytokine storm" that killed in less than 24~36 hours, unlike flu seasons before or since. Modern flu variants are mostly descendants of this virus, thus the dominance of the H1N1 type.
Idle curiosity satisfied, I clicked on a link on something unusual coming out of Mexico. Uh-oh. The fatality curve vs age had an anomalous distribution, hitting young adults hardest. In the following media storm over the next two weeks, this was not generally mentioned - I suspect to avoid widespread panic. In a visit to the hospital on a minor, unrelated matter, I noticed the warnings to the public and the health providers were not the same - the health providers were being told about the similarities to the 1918 pandemic, and the public wasn't.
Still a matter of intellectual curiosity at that point, but also a little wariness, too. I did some more CDC reading and noted the virus had a 2~3 day latency, a disease period of 10~14 days, and the virus particles were viable for 2~8 hours on dry surfaces (much longer on wet ones, of course). OK, I made a little mental decision to slow down our social visits a bit, and no air travel for sure, since the damned airlines are too cheap to provide all-fresh air from the vents, and mostly use poorly filtered recycled air to save a little of bit of fuel. Although not mentioned by the CDC to spare the airline industry, airplanes were the obvious vector, since there were cases on record of one influenza-sick person boarding the airplane at the beginning of the trip, the plane sitting idle on the runway for three hours, and the majority of the passengers sick by the time they got to their destination.
Then a week later we have our coughing guest, who had supposedly "recovered". Uh, not so much as it turned out. After doing all this reading, yours truly mindlessly forgot and sat right where the guest has sat for two hours. Two days later, I had a cough, and things kind of went downhill from there.
I got a better idea of what the CDC meant by mild, moderate, and severe. Severe, it turns out, means hospital admission to the Intensive Care ward and administering life support. Moderate means really sick, but at home. I was determined to stay in the "mild" category until the infection spread to my sinuses and eyes. OK, that was it, time to visit the doctor and get something for the secondary bacterial infection that was moving around and having a party. Got the antibiotics (Clindamycin and eye drops) and things gradually quieted down over the next week. Fortunately, Karna only had a very mild version. (Even at the height on the 1918 pandemic, when the whole world was exposed, only 1/3 of the population actually had any symptoms.)
The sneaky thing about the Tamiflu and Relenza prescriptions is that they're telling the public to stay away from the hospitals unless it gets serious and starts to develop potentially dangerous secondary symptoms, which takes about a week, and guess what, Tamiflu and Relenza are only good if administered in the first 24~48 hours after onset of symptoms. Nice Catch-22 there.
Whatever this thing is, it is really contagious. Don't mess with it. There's nobody I dislike enough to pass this thing on to, which is why I wore a face mask at the hospital and had the interesting experience of giving everyone a good Halloween scare. Booga booga booga! Stay away from me! I'll contaminate anywhere I sit! (So I stood up while waiting.) But being sick kind of took the fun out of it.
Mostly better now. It does resolve in 2 weeks or so, and I feel "good" for most of the day now. I actually smiled and laughed for the first time on Monday.
P.S. Everyone all grossed out? Be glad I didn't go into the symptoms in more detail. Let's just say it wasn't much fun, and anyone stupid enough to go to a "flu party" must be the kind of person that jumps off a bridge for kicks.
P.P.S. There is an upside to this thing being more widespread than generally reported (thanks to an intentionally skewed test protocol). It means the fatality rate is low and similar to a normal flu season. What the epidemiologists are waiting for is a return in the fall - that's what happened in 1918. I plan to get my N95 facemasks before then.