Mine has been building this house for the past 3+ yrs.
Passed my final inspection Friday and should have my certificate of occupancy this wk.
That’s a really a Big load off the shoulders!
I’ve never had time (since Matt clued me in on what he was doing) to fully sit down and absorb much of his documented journey.
Passed my final inspection Friday and should have my certificate of occupancy this wk.
That’s a really a Big load off the shoulders!
I’ve never had time (since Matt clued me in on what he was doing) to fully sit down and absorb much of his documented journey.
It's not a binary. In a fully relativistic framework it becomes meaningless to say that recording half wave rectified is less accurate. Not much wiggle room. The above seems more a valid judgment of standard music formats and recording techniques than a conclusive limit on the possible.
Keep in mind that back in those days we didn't live long enough to deal with much diminished hearing as we do now.
When you do, you also peek, don't you?
With "peek" you mean I also look at the measurements?
If so, then yes when there is a slight chance that I can verify things with measurements, but often that is not possible...
Well, since hearing is my greatest asset in life (both for work and private enjoyment), I have always tried to protect it from loud noise. Therefore I have always stayed clear of DJ's, pop concerts etc.
It is true that in the high frequency range our ears get less sensitive over the years, but I cannot complain so far. Being over 50 I can still judge HF behaviour well enough to make decisions by ear, but that could change quite suddenly of course.
I find it sad to see that so many young people have damaged their hearing because nobody is respecting official guidelines at party's or pop concerts.
The guys that adjust the volume sliders on these occasions all seem to be rather deaf already, and for this reason they raise volume by at least 12 dB over what would be the limit, causing the attendants to become deaf too. It is a very sad vicious circle.
The few young people that wear protective earbuds are accused of being non-social and not cool...
Well, that is a rather philosphical question. I would say they are a kind of synthesizers, because the digital description of zeros and ones is a very remote description of how the analogue signal should be reconstructed. But that is a subjective way of looking at it.
Congratulations!
What a feat to built one's own house.
Since this is the lounge, would a little photo of the house be permitted?
I agree that the term "accurate" is problematic because of the nature of recording etc.
That is one of the reasons, why I personally distrust a too rigid view of the scientific nature of audio.
However, we can question most of our vocabulary in this manner, since nearly every subjective impression lacks firm definition and evidence.
What I was hoping for is that the objectivists could simply accept (or at least ignore) such subjective notions when it is clear to them that there is no real claim made of objective proof. A way of "live and let live" among the two opposing ideologies.
I disagree entirely. Unless you have a reference to compare the result, then the term accurate is absolutely meaningless. It matters not how lifelike the illusion experienced by the listener appears to be because there is no guarantee that this is the same perception they would have experienced at the recording.
I would hope my posts actually blurred the gap rather than widened it. It should hopefully be clear now that objective blind testing measures lack the analytic accuracy to account for the non-linear, hysteretic capabilities of our minds and that our mind possess a spectacular capability for delusion that precludes certainty in subjective assessments without objective evidence to affirm them.
Yes, if certainty is precluded (and I agree with you here) could the objectivists still contemplate to let people with a different view express themselves without immediately pulling out their knives?
It is also an incorrect way of looking at it. If you need a pictorial representation of how the ones and zeros are heard, try low-pass filtering the rectangular bit stream and have a look at the waveform you ear transduces. Information is the key.
It all depends on how you define science...
The reconstruction still is a work in progress that seems to get gradually closer to the original analogue source, but it is by no means a 100% reconstruction.
Furthermore we nowadays have a few ways of measuring how close we seem to get, but nobody can supply evidence that these measurements give a comprehensive picture.
It may well be not so straightforward as some would like it to be.
The analogy with a synthesizer is therefore maybe not so farfetched...
I regard subjective reports as the impetus for investigation. The entire body of evidence for objective design in audio engineering is fundamentally dependent on subjective findings. But there are many instances when investigation shows the subjectivist findings were false and IMHO this is the cause of the divide. I have tried to make clear that where a subjective impression is false, it will be believed to be true by the person that reports it because delusion abounds in our perceptions. This inherent fallibility is shared by us all, but appears not to be acknowledged by the "subjectivists".
Thanks Lucas,
Designed,engineered, built by yours truly......sub contracted out the pile driving, seamless aluminum roof, and Sheetrock, rest is all my wife and I, a few friends here and there (they hardly answer the phone when I call any more!) and a couple random locally hired kids.
I still have some interior trim to finish but it was close enough to pass inspection. Wall of sound is next!
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.