They are here toNeither![]()

Changing the subject, I’m expecting a delivery of an Apple Lightening 3.5mm headphone DAC tomorrow. Cost me £9. 😱 Hoping for a bit more signal output to hit the electronics - might sound a bit more musical - might not. Not feeling the thrill of anticipation, but at least it will be a benchmark of sorts. Let’s wait and see, you never know.
You're using it with an iPhone or iPad I assume since it's got a lightning connector? I'm not sure it's actually any better than the built-in analog outputs of previous generation devices that had 3.5mm jacks, but I suppose it could be.
You're using it with an iPhone or iPad I assume since it's got a lightning connector? I'm not sure it's actually any better than the built-in analog outputs of previous generation devices that had 3.5mm jacks, but I suppose it could be.
Yes, an iPad Air 2. On either headphones or through my horn speaker playback, I find the sound quality from a Gen 4 iPod shuffle to be significantly better than from the headphone socket of the iPad. So I am curious to see if I will be able to hear an appreciable difference through this el-cheapo Apple DAC. All the reports say there is no audible difference, but there is (apparently) slightly more signal output that may (or may not) react positively with my electronics. It’s worth a punt.
No, you'd need an infinite number of "bins" 🙂 BTW, I'm wondering, in your universe, if sound is not made up of sine waves, what is it made up of?
LOL
Are you or have you ever been Keyser Söze?
Is that as near as we are going to get to a straight answer, that being, "I agree sound is made up of sine waves"? Hallelujah! 😀LOL
Are you or have you ever been Keyser Söze?
No, I'm Spartacus 😎Is that as near as we are going to get to a straight answer, that being, "I agree sound is made up of sine waves"? Hallelujah! 😀
No, I'm Spartacus 😎
Jakob has taught you well. He knows that it's sine waves all the way down 🙂
Jakob has taught you well. He knows that it's sine waves all the way down 🙂
And my wife is Spartacus, too 😀
Neither![]()
ToS you're getting into the spirit, big thumbs up on Elaine Radigue. BTW Are you familiar with Phil Niblock, Pauline Oliveros, Yoshi Wada, Tom Johnson, etc.?
That's my listening at work tomorrow decided 🙂
Yoshi had the purest drone, he filled a compressed air tank, connected it to a homemade bagpipe, put it in a large empty swimming pool, and let it go. World Music.
ToS you're getting into the spirit, big thumbs up on Elaine Radigue. BTW Are you familiar with Phil Niblock, Pauline Oliveros, Yoshi Wada, Tom Johnson, etc.?
That's the spirit ToS, - tiki torch lit 🙄
That's the spirit ToS, - tiki torch lit 🙄
I'm old enough to remember tiki culture, I think I'll watch a few episodes of Adventures in Paradise tonight.
I understand the difference, but I suspect you do not which is why you keep calling Fourier decomposition a "model" when it is not a model but reality.
FT is a tool, not a reality. Extreme mathematical realism is silly.
FT is a tool, not a reality. Extreme mathematical realism is silly.
Yes, in particular when you don't understand it.
Extreme mathematical realism is silly.
Almost biblical, the number of the beast is 666, or today 0110 0110 0110.
FT is a tool, not a reality. Extreme mathematical realism is silly.
If 2+2=4 is not reality than either is FT. And I guess Maxwells equations are silly.
Almost biblical, the number of the beast is 666, or today 0110 0110 0110.
Very interesting, any two digits are the binary complement of both neighboring two digits.
Actually, you do not have to understand FT in order to criticize mathematical realism, let alone botched versions of mathematical realism.Yes, in particular when you don't understand it.
I am probably irked by his assertions as much as he is with folks he does not agree with. Scientism is obnoxious.Almost biblical, the number of the beast is 666, or today 0110 0110 0110.
I did not imply that.If 2+2=4 is not reality than either is FT. And I guess Maxwells equations are silly.
You got it wrong. My suggestion would be to start here:
Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Best regards.
ToS you're getting into the spirit, big thumbs up on Elaine Radigue. BTW Are you familiar with Phil Niblock, Pauline Oliveros, Yoshi Wada, Tom Johnson, etc.?
Scott,
At the moment I have been listening to the early women electronic composers, like Daphne Oram, Laurie Spiegel, and Eliane Radigue. Soon I shall be listening to Pauline Oliveros and Else Marie Pade. All of these women have a decidedly different understanding of musical form through electronics - very different to orthodoxical male bombast. Goodness, I have been hearing and visualising psychic places I never knew existed.
The other male composers you mentioned I have heard of, and maybe I will listen to them another time. I’m sure I will, but right now the women in electronica really fascinate me.
ToS
Yoshi had the purest drone, he filled a compressed air tank, connected it to a homemade bagpipe, put it in a large empty swimming pool, and let it go. World Music.
Sugar and spice and all things nice!

Actually, you do not have to understand FT in order to criticize mathematical realism, let alone botched versions of mathematical realism.
You don't have to understand the BS to criticize it, what a relief.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III