Model-dependant realism,
Model-dependent realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
strange but interesting..
Regards
M. Gregg
Model-dependent realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
strange but interesting..Regards
M. Gregg
I think it explains very well the disagreements that persist around audio.
Multiple valid realities exist depending on the users likes and needs.
This frames the whole solid state vs tube debate nicely.
One camp views an amplifier that measures well as better then the other camp that values century old technology that was essentially selected by ear.
Who is right? Which is better? Neither, it just depends if you want to listen to it or measure it.
(...but if you ask me I will tell you tubes are better.
)
Multiple valid realities exist depending on the users likes and needs.
This frames the whole solid state vs tube debate nicely.
One camp views an amplifier that measures well as better then the other camp that values century old technology that was essentially selected by ear.
Who is right? Which is better? Neither, it just depends if you want to listen to it or measure it.
(...but if you ask me I will tell you tubes are better.
)
The notion of multiple realities is fine but doesn't go quite far enough. Try this one, written about visual perception, and mentally re-purpose it for auditory perception : http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/%7Eddhoff/ConstructionOfVisualReality.pdf
It's perfect.
An amplifier is not a real amplifier, it's just the best model you can come up with of what a real amplifier would be like.
For example you have your amplifier, it is your physical model of what an amplifier is.
Your reality is why you selected your model. Perhaps your education heavily influences the way you make this model. If you did not know what you know now, I bet you would build an amplifier a different way. "Better" or "worse" would be defined by the context of the person giving said opinion.
Then take someone like Nelson Pass, (I will use him for an example as he is here anyways, hope you don't mind.)
His amplifiers have an almost cult like following. His enthusiasts believe he makes the very best model of a real amplifier. Everyone of them is right.
So since we don't know what the perfect amplifier is, or what it is made out of, we can only make machines that try and simulate the results we expect from a perfect amplifier, based on tangible experiences and monetary resources.
An amplifier is not a real amplifier, it's just the best model you can come up with of what a real amplifier would be like.
For example you have your amplifier, it is your physical model of what an amplifier is.
Your reality is why you selected your model. Perhaps your education heavily influences the way you make this model. If you did not know what you know now, I bet you would build an amplifier a different way. "Better" or "worse" would be defined by the context of the person giving said opinion.
Then take someone like Nelson Pass, (I will use him for an example as he is here anyways, hope you don't mind.)
His amplifiers have an almost cult like following. His enthusiasts believe he makes the very best model of a real amplifier. Everyone of them is right.
So since we don't know what the perfect amplifier is, or what it is made out of, we can only make machines that try and simulate the results we expect from a perfect amplifier, based on tangible experiences and monetary resources.
As I mentioned in another thread, I've actually written a few papers that touch upon this sort of topic. They're written for an academic audience, so they presume a fairly extensive background knowledge in the history of philosophy and metaphysics, but I can forward you links or citations if you're interested.Well that's your model of reality.
Does it?
To me it should reproduce, amplification would be considered a distortion.
Anyhow let me rephrase that we do not know how to build the perfect amplifier, that is why we still have so many models, that are really just complex variations of a simpler crystal radio model.
Pretty much all research is focused on electronic reproduction. That does not mean mechanical or other forms of reproduction do not exist.
It could even be made from coconut shells, The problem is they had at least at least 3 different "real" radios on that island (Gilligans), they never felt the need to make a better model.
Maybe that is why they never got off the island.
To me it should reproduce, amplification would be considered a distortion.
Anyhow let me rephrase that we do not know how to build the perfect amplifier, that is why we still have so many models, that are really just complex variations of a simpler crystal radio model.
Pretty much all research is focused on electronic reproduction. That does not mean mechanical or other forms of reproduction do not exist.
It could even be made from coconut shells, The problem is they had at least at least 3 different "real" radios on that island (Gilligans), they never felt the need to make a better model.
Maybe that is why they never got off the island.
Attachments
How does that even make sense?
Does your amplifier not amplify?
Personally I consider the perfect amplifier to be a 'wire with gain'. It seems your ideal amplifier would be just a wire.
Mmmmmmm.
Elephant Parts.
So what do we have here? The trunk or the tail?
Even the perception of a bacterium is part of the system bacterium/world. Is informational, and as such is physical/metaphysical. Difference between us and a bacterium is individually, we've got more metaphysical redundancy. Lately, this seems to have contributed to our evolutionary success in which truth values do seem to count for something.
Have I fallen down Alice's hole again? It seems to happen quite frequently on this forum.H E Pennypacker said:
Last time I checked, crystal radios (whether simple or complex) did not amplify.
Are we encountering 'model-dependent English' too, where words and sentences mean whatever their author wishes them to mean? If so, discussion will be difficult.
Not at all. Amplification does not mean making a signal bigger. High fidelity does not mean having low nonlinearity. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Two plus two equals five.
I'm a bit disappointed in you.
See: Peter Walker.
Typically, I do not say things that I didn't write. Or vice versa. No need to make stuff up.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.