Dilemma: Should I not believe any reviewers who talk about cables or just ignore that section of... - Page 93

Quote:

Originally Posted by knucklehead 

mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about. 

There's no reason that the brain's pattern recognition can't be investigated by scientists. I know I said that ultimately listening must be employed to determine accuracy, but I should clarify that by saying that listening means using the brain's pattern recognition. What is observed by listening can be investigated. But there is another side to what I am saying, which is that using science to investigate audio has its limitations. To the extent I discuss the limitations of science, I'm still talking about sound science. I'm presenting a challenge to it. Seems to me it belongs on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knucklehead 

mike - Just in case you're not aware of it, you're delivering a "Turn on, tune in, drop out" message in what is supposed to be a science forum. Nothing wrong with you experiencing things with whatever approach you find the most enjoyable, be it "holistic" or whatever -- but if you want to discuss it here, you should be willing to try to apply a bit of reductionism to what you are talking about. 

By way, where do you get the "drop out" part? what does "drop out" mean anyway? I don't I'm saying anything like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 

By way, where do you get the "drop out" part? what does "drop out" mean anyway? I don't I'm saying anything like that.

Tim Leary

You must be young ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by knucklehead 

Tim Leary

 

You must be young ....

Okay, I'm an infant. What does "drop out" mean?

It's hippie schiit... "Like WOW, man! Check out that chick's Karma!"

Not Karma, it's about the aura.  The cool colors that a person gives off, man. 

You must not have ever done drugs.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike1127 

There's no reason that the brain's pattern recognition can't be investigated by scientists. I know I said that ultimately listening must be employed to determine accuracy, but I should clarify that by saying that listening means using the brain's pattern recognition. What is observed by listening can be investigated. But there is another side to what I am saying, which is that using science to investigate audio has its limitations. To the extent I discuss the limitations of science, I'm still talking about sound science. I'm presenting a challenge to it. Seems to me it belongs on this forum.

I'm pretty sure that the brains pattern recognition ability has been, and continues to be investigated. I also think that it is already recognized by pretty much everyone that people have varying levels of ability to notice patterns in sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXM0nZq0RA

I also question your categorical dismissal of scientists and engineers as being blind to these patterns that you're talking about --- none of them study or play music seriously? ... or have even talked to or studied serious musicians before???

I agree that if you have a special ability that it should be studied so that it might advance our understanding. There is also the possibility that the study might wind up showing that what you perceive as a special ability might be a misinterpretation on your part. 

Dropping out, I think, referred to a conscious choosing of an alternate way of living life different from what may have been expected by society.

* eta- I'm not sure how the phrase was used as a criticism earlier.

Quote:

Originally Posted by knucklehead 

I'm pretty sure that the brains pattern recognition ability has been, and continues to be investigated. I also think that it is already recognized by pretty much everyone that people have varying levels of ability to notice patterns in sound:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qXM0nZq0RA

 

I also question your categorical dismissal of scientists and engineers as being blind to these patterns that you're talking about --- none of them study or play music seriously? ... or have even talked to or studied serious musicians before???

 

I agree that if you have a special ability that it should be studied so that it might advance our understanding. There is also the possibility that the study might wind up showing that what you perceive as a special ability might be a misinterpretation on your part. 

It's not "level of ability" -- different people have different patterns they respond to.

I'm responding primarily to the scientists on this forum or those here on this forum who present the science orthodoxy

For instance when I discuss "Pace, rhythm, and timing" I get people who simply dismiss it (Ethan Winer) or numerous people who resist my attempt to describe it. Yet it's almost universally recognized by the "audiophools" I hang out with and universally recognized by the musicians I hang with (although they would speak more of quality of rhythm).

What can I say? Something so universal among musicians is received here with resistance or  misunderstanding. What do you want me to say?

Your problem is that you insist on using vocabulary that may have some meaning to you, but has very little meaning to anyone else. If you made an effort to understand how sound works, and learned the vocabulary used to describe different aspects of sound, you would probably get a better reaction from people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rroseperry 


I'm not a musician, but if you're talking about pace, rhythm, and timing wrt to a performance, it makes perfect sense. But if you're talking about equipment, it's mysticism, unless you can show how it's perceives or show how it can be measured.

It can't be measured until a scientist takes it seriously enough to work on it. My point that it is not taken seriously here on this forum has just been partially confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot 

Your problem is that you insist on using vocabulary that may have some meaning to you, but has very little meaning to anyone else. If you made an effort to understand how sound works, and learned the vocabulary used to describe different aspects of sound, you would probably get a better reaction from people.

It has lots of meaning to the people I hang with. My point again is partially confirmed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rroseperry 


I did say I took it seriously in a particular context, just to be clear here.

What is generally dismissed on this forum is the idea that an audio system can change the quality of a performance. Yet this is obvious stuff among the people I hang with.