Take your time, they have a long trip.
Jn
Oh wait....
Your ugly, stupid, fat, smelly, inconsiderate (well, ok that last one was a stretch, I was running out of things to attack you with).
There, now I feel like I belong in this thread..😀
Last edited:
My concern has been pointed out by others. While it is possible to go multichannel, as many channels as instruments, one microphone cannot capture the accurate sound field of most instruments. Amplitude vs direction vs frequency is so instrument dependent and impossible to capture with one mike that I suspect the tech will be limited to large venues like movies and IMAX facilities.
Ah, forgot.. It still forces a sweet spot...sigh.
Ps. I have to admit, I really do enjoy small venues (50 seats or so) with live jazz. 3,4 times a year at a local spot..
Jn
Last edited:
And you turned a contraction into a possessive. It was bad enough when you verbified a noun...
I don't think most of us here have stooped to name calling, please don't start emulating Joe R and imagining ill intentioned cabals conspiring against you. I would like to think we can still discuss these topics in a spirited way without anybody feeling hurt or put-upon.
I know. Markw4 keeps inviting people to come over and listen but won't reveal what the listening method will be even when asked about it. He (& his affiliated audio business) has a lot to hide.
VERBIFIED??? OMG, I can't stop laughing...
Honestly, I thought you were going to attack my ending a sentence using the word "with". As in you never end a sentence with a proposition.😉
I have no idea what you meant by: "turned a contraction into a possessive "😕
Are you sure that is even English???😀
Cheers, John
Seriously, my stomach hurts. Thanks...
Oh..Pps, I am not concerned with a cabal conspiring against me. I do however note there is a tendency to categorize others and attack with no mercy despite the message. I prefer the thread posters not do that. And my name calling reference, that was just a vehicle, I've no "beef" with TT, so could not come up with anything to pseudo-attack him with to make my point of the incivility.
Last edited:
I wouldn't bother unless I got a listening protocol from someone like SY and insisted we apply it.
While I'm not in a position to spend that kind of money jet setting around, if I were in the area, I would most certainly stop by, enjoy a discussion, and have a glass of wine. Doing a dbt listening protocol when drink and conversation could be had??? No.
Even with, God forbid...John curl...😉
Jn
Last edited:
I found a bit of text explanation was required in order to send a message to a contributor. So let's go back to school.
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
He attributes these intentions to his interlocutor, in a perverse and subtle way, but this indicates, in fact, on what terrain he is, himself, located.
6-
Finally, it should be noted that at no time, none, was any mention made of the ideas or arguments presented by his interlocutor, and no attempt to challenge them up with arguments.
Conclusion: The arguments of authority do not offer any advantage and the prudence would require that they can be used, with any luck of success, only if one has a largely established authority.
In any case, they will not convince the opponents. It is simply an attempt to silence them.
Text explanation
1-
We note that the author use in the introduction a formula that should have been a conclusion. In other words, he begins this exchange by ... closing the debate. Some kind of disorder ? No, it looks like a tactic of war.
2-
Here, the author understands that he own an universal truth, shared by the whole community that he calls to his rescue, calling them to line up by his side. We will also feel the contemptuous aspect of the formula which suggests that the interlocutor is unworthy of the time that the author could devote to him.
3-
But, there it seems to indicate, without recognizing it explicitly, that this debate is not situated on the plane of ideas, but on that of emotions. We will see later on what order they are.
4-
Back to paragraph 2. With an added innuendo: his interlocutor is stupid.
5-
This underline the paragraph 3, as expected. It is a question to see who is wright or wrong, but not in the order to find any truth, but to win an opponent. In french, we use the same word "avoir raison" to express that we own a truth and to indicate a victory against an enemy.
He attributes these intentions to his interlocutor, in a perverse and subtle way, but this indicates, in fact, on what terrain he is, himself, located.
6-
That is confirmed but the use of the word "Master", which clearly expresses that the author situate the debate on a rank in society or a matter of power.
Finally, it should be noted that at no time, none, was any mention made of the ideas or arguments presented by his interlocutor, and no attempt to challenge them up with arguments.
Conclusion: The arguments of authority do not offer any advantage and the prudence would require that they can be used, with any luck of success, only if one has a largely established authority.
In any case, they will not convince the opponents. It is simply an attempt to silence them.
Last edited:
A contraction means turning two words into one word, like "You are" becomes "You're". A possessive is a word like "mine" or "your". So when you wrote "Your ugly, stupid, fat, smelly, inconsiderate", it did not mean "You are ugly..." but instead seems like an incomplete sentence whose subject is a list of bad qualities. And yeah, verbified 😀
Two points.
1. If I wanted to learn the English language, I would have taken the "English as a second language" course they offered me freshman year in college.
2. #damn#, your good..
Cheers, jn
Ps. Happy new year..
Last edited:
It's completely insane, this story of double blind test.
Why would we want to transform listening to music in some sort of scanner or echography session?
Do we take a stopwatch and an accelerometer when we try a car with a car dealer ?
Don't worry, it won't last ;-)
But you will find an advantage to no longer be bothered by all these distortions ;-)
Of course they don't hear any difference. The have no equipment to do that. Even, if they have the equipment, they still don't hear any difference 😀
"God dims our eyes to hide the dust". Said some other old person, long ago.
All good fortune,
Chris
This is really interesting development. Makes me want to try it. Much refined from Surround Sound recording/play.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.