alansawyer said:
Sometimes there are witnesses to my experiences, like when I choose cables.
Sometime me and others share the same, or very similar, experience.
Last night a friend audiophile of mine came over to test 2 Class D 250W mono-blocks on my system. Both of us heard the same thing: mid-high frequencies were highly exaggerated, while low frequencies were highly attenuated.
alansawyer said:
I have no idea if there is a tunnel, or not. However, I cannot state neither that there is a soul or not, nor that the soul's experiences may differ from physical experiences or not, nor that the soul experiences something very real which looks to it like a tunnel, or not.
In stating that there is no tunnel there are many unproved assumptions.
Joshua_G said:
Joshua,
We can continue this indefinitely, as I said before, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force it to drink.
Just one last comment. If someone states that he 'saw a bright light and went through a tunnel', while all that time he was in coma in a hospital bed, I am pretty sure that he did not actually go through a tunnel. I said this as an example of having an experience that was not based on an actual phenomenon. That's all, an example. I can find a lot more examples, but you either get my point or not. If you refuse to get my point, you will still refuse it after 1000 more examples. As I said, YMMV.
Have a nice evening,
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Another erroneous assumption of yours.
I said neither that there is a soul nor a tunnel. I said that there are assumptions in stating that there is no tunnel (in soul's realm).
Accepting the possibility that a soul may exist is different from stating that the soul exist, or that it doesn't exist.
janneman said:
That would imply, if I understand that TIM, for example, would not be terribly detectable, since it is correlated with specific events - transient overload/intermodulation.
Build an amplifier that on purpose has "overshoot", in which case there is a direct correlation between the signals that will cause the overshoot to be audibly present - are you saying that this will not be easy to detect?
Or is the definition of "correlated" different than I understand?
Regardless of the definition, it is this very sort of "distortion" - one that "rides along" with the music/sound that at least I find most objectionable. I find the sources of this annoyance everywhere from the original recording (in some cases) all the way out to the speakers...
The mixed down XdB Sousa band is not this sort of "distortion".
_-_-bear
Joshua_G said:
Right back where we started. Without eliminating the possibility that there were real measurable frequency response deviations with simple explanations, this sort of test brings no evidence at all to the "sound" of cables argument.
You make very quantifiable claims, "highly exaggerated" and "highly attenuated".
I would absolutely agree, which is why they'll go under the aural microscope as soon as I have a place to open up my gear and do some soldering.
Jan: Regarding tunnels and lights, I had a very similar NDE. The tunnel, the light, the voices of my long departed loved ones. But they were all saying, "Quick! Cover up that light before he sees it and finds us!"
And regarding the Sousa band, could one make the case that uncorrelated additions are less detectable than correlated ones?
Edmond Stuart said:
My conclusion concerns only those mono-blocks we heard. Also, hooked to another system (pre-amp and speakers), they may sound differently. I don't know and I don't care – I'm not a reviewer of audio gear.
scott wurcer said:
What we heard is what we heard – I described what we heard. My description is applicable only to the audible impression.
We and many other of my audiophile friends also hear differences in cables.
I don't know and I don't care whether those differences are measurable or not.
I choose components for my audio system for the purpose of enjoying more music reproduced by it – not for better measurements.
You seek evidence – good for you – but why aren't you willing to explore an experiential phenomena of yours (differences in sound via certain headphones)?
BTW, I also seek evidence – only, I seek experiential evidence, rather than measured ones.
Joshua_G said:
I thought we settled that. I know that planar esls, boxes full of cones, and headphones all sound different. The new headpones have very extended low frequency response this is known by listening and measuring. They exaggerate the rumble and tone arm resonance on my transfered LP's hense the "badness". I don't use tone controls.
I have not attacked you, but in general your response encapsulates a common audiophile attitude and approach which I pointed out weeks ago. There are many that don't care why some things work and others don't. I don't know why some folks here waste their time arguing the point. Random empiricism makes very slow progress and gains very little knowledge.
Joshua_G, I am in appreciation of your Class D listening experience. What brand was it? This is important to me now, as I am 'selecting' a class D amp for a project.
PS Please don't 'bait' your critics, even by answering them in a rational way, especially about 'tunnels'. This will just make things go even slower.
PS Please don't 'bait' your critics, even by answering them in a rational way, especially about 'tunnels'. This will just make things go even slower.
scott wurcer said:
Er...Scott...I don't think we're on the same page, here...
I did not say that there was anything unexplained; the closest I came was to say that I wanted to know how the thing ticked (the blurb in Scientific American didn't say). I read the full writeup from the Nano Letter website and it described the mechanism. That came after I had posted the link, however.
I repeat...I did not invoke magic. My intention was simply to mention something of potential interest to those who follow audio as a hobby.
Jeez....
Curiously, I started a thread a year or two ago about another new speaker technology (also gleaned from Scientific American, as I recall). I was lambasted there, too. All for trying to share something interesting.
Hmmm...
There are any number of observations I could make here, but I will restrict myself to one:
To the extent that measurement-oriented people tend to ignore or insult anyone who does not share their faith, they are sometimes guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They jump to the conclusion that anything said by someone who doesn't share their belief system must, ipso facto, always be full of merde about everything, all the time, every day, and in every way.
It's damned unfortunate that anyone feels the need to take that extreme a position.
Grey
If remember correctly, you said something like "flaws in the recording", which is different from what you wrote above. However, it is for you alone to do, or not do' anything about it.
If I'd be scientist, attempting to advance knowledge, I may have taken different attitude.
As a layman audiophile, my experience answers all my needs (other than money to buy the gear I want).
However, it appears to me that some people who are more scientifically inclined than me, are ignoring reported experiences too easily. I thought that having an open mind is one of the prerequisites of a true scientist
I wasn't told and I didn't ask. I believe it's a DIY, not a commercial one.
Thank you. I don't mind much the criticism, which more than anything else exposes the criticizers.
Also, I'm willing to discuss tunnels as well as anything else.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.