[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't deny anything! I merely hinted at the intuitive evidence that to pretend to grasp the universe by means of a mechanicist succession of empirical cause-effect (*) is pure logos-enthusiastic self-delusion. Such a thing ultimately is nothing else than halving man's understanding (by halving, at best, man's ancestral faculties). Man you sound so sure of the perfection of your own inductive science. (*) leaving all that's left unknown to religious opinion, 'course

Great post! Hume would be proud!

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn /img/forum/go_quote.gif charlie parker live massey hall with a pawnshop plastic sax sounds a million times better than kenny G in his finest grammy moment. 'nuff said. that said, the Bird with a primo Selmer blasting in an intimate club live would have DESTROYED that cheesy massey hall recording.

Give Charlie Parker one of those Kay-Bee toy sax's and see if that still holds true (probably...but still...)

!

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Give Charlie Parker one of those Kay-Bee toy sax's and see if that still holds true (probably...but still...) !

reminds me of bill and ted, where beethoven went to the mall and fiddled with a synth - and in a second was channeling, uh, Nuno Bettencourt. lol!

 

[Chef Medeski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by plywood99 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly. For instance the negative talk about eq puzzles me too. Because that is exactly what different amps and phones combos do. Like the thread with people hooking their k701 up to a warmer amp. To me that is eqing the phone but going about it a different way... Ply

But an Amp and headphones "EQ" without distortion. That is the only reason people say not to EQ, not because it is bad to enjoy music how you like it either with a lot of bass or treble but because when you do, DAPs can't handle accurate EQing so they end up distorting the sound a lot, which will ruin the sound more than it helps.

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif A I, personally, find the term hobby insulting. Of course, I don't consider myself involved in the headphone game at all. Headphones are simply part of the music, and the music is a way of life. Calling it a hobby puts it in the same category as needlework, or video games, or building cars. If you think music is the same as these hobbies, thats fine, call it a hobby. I think music is WAAAAAAAAAY different.

You sound like a music lover (didn't we all?

), and of course there is nothing wrong to place music before gear. However, i think some of us have a slight different view on that. IMO, I think there are three rough and not well defined groups of people here:

There is the Music Lover, who value music more than musical gear (headphone, speaker, amp, source...etc). There is the Audiophile, who value their gear as much as their music (me

). And there is the Gear Addict, who value gear more than music (not necessary bad)

I don't consider Music Lover to see what they do as hobby, cause love is neither hobby nor pastime. Audiophile, where their love of music extends to a more technical area, can be seen as a kind of hobby (on the technical part). Gear Addict, can also be seen as hobby. It is just that the focus is purely on the technical part and no longer on music itself.

For an example, loving stamp (the sharp, design, color...etc) is not a hobby, but collecting and loving stamp is. Collecting but not loving stamp can also be a hobby, cause it is the collecting part the person enjoy.

I see neither groups have any wrong in it, may it be love, pastime or hobby. The point is pleasure, as many have pointed out before me, which of course justify everything we do here. If there is something wrong here, it is those (not you, of course) who place hierarchy on each groups and judge other to be a lower form of existence. Joke or not, it is fine...as long as you are only judging what you do, and show a little bit of respect to other.

 

[neilvg]

Yeah I don't like the word "hobby" either. Bad Word. BAD WORD.

How can you seperate music from the musician? Even listening to music, the listener is orchestrating the sounds! I'm sorry, it is NOT passive, even though most do not realize this.

Neil

 

[El Condor]

So true that this hobby is a joke. Oh well. Better to realize it late than never.

Please send all your audio equipment to my place. I will gladly get "rid" of it all for you

.

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trogdor /img/forum/go_quote.gif Man are you so wrong....

I have heard Charlie Parker on a plastic sax poorly recorded. And it definitely sounds better than any other saxophonist whoever lived. If you want to talk about faulty clarinets that cant even make a sound, thats a different story. But if the notes are right, the notes are right. doesnt matter how they sound.

Quote:

Btw, I think we lost some of Parker's magic because of the limitations of recording music in his era. Make no mistake about it.

How much magic? A 1/10 of a percent? Maybe I'll give you that. Any more and you cease being a music fan, and become simply an audio fan.

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Art: To deny a detemined universe is to deny causality. To deny causality is to deny influence of prior events in producing current events (or the future's influence on the present at a quantum level - yes the future can cause the present). To deny causality is to assert that something can somehow emerge from nothing - can create itself.


Trogdor: Merovingian, can we please stay on topic? I reject the SA5K's are the one.

Art: I also reject this idea.

Trogdor: Your rejection of existentialism is well noted as well as your fervent belief in a God (drarthurwells is walking straight into a religious argument).

Art: I believe in God as causality - as science will come to understand over time. I believe tha tinformation and datas processing at sub-quantum and quantum levels runs the material universe - governs causality - as science is increasingly coming to understand. The sub-quantum is an immaterial realm where time/space is simultaneos and everywhere at once.

Trogdor: Aman's point is just dumb. I agree that its an arrogant and snobbish attitude in that it perpetuates this myth that if you create music you have some sort of deeper love for it than someone who listens to it or even conducts it.

Art: Reatarded? Derogatory name calling is an argument against a postion? I would agree with Aman that if you create music you more likely understand it better than someone who does not create it, and that greater understanding is the basis of greater musical appreciation. Thus who who create music are more likely to appreciate it relative to those who don't - Amans's point - and this is dumb?

 

[Coltrane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClieOS /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is the Music Lover, who value music more than musical gear (headphone, speaker, amp, source...etc). There is the Audiophile, who value their gear as much as their music (me ). And there is the Gear Addict, who value gear more than music (not necessary bad)

Excellently put. Many here are audiophiles and gear addicts. You value your gear as much as you value music? Thats fine for you, but for me that is like saying I value you my headphones as much as I value my friends and family, or even moreso. In fact, there is only one human being on this planet that I would prefer over having music. Music is just a pastime for many people here, and that i why they argue over the most inane details. Its a tech hobby like TVs or ham radio. It is also why so many people view head-fi as populated by crazy people.

Great music sounds PHENOMENAL through ibuds. This is why I laugh at people who say they cant listen to lossy files, or you NEED an amp for IEMs, or the een more ridiculous notion that people stop listening to cds because of their sound quality. I have no use for these people, as they clearly arent too interested in music.

 

[drarthurwells]

Originally Posted by drarthurwells
Art: To deny a detemined universe is to deny causality. To deny causality is to deny influence of prior events in producing current events (or the future's influence on the present at a quantum level - yes the future can cause the present). To deny causality is to assert that something can somehow emerge from nothing - can create itself.

So, do you think something can come from nothing - can create itself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't deny anything! I merely hinted at the intuitive evidence that to pretend to grasp the universe by means of a mechanicist succession of empirical cause-effect (*) is pure logos-enthusiastic self-delusion. Such a thing ultimately is nothing else than halving man's understanding (by halving, at best, man's ancestral faculties). Man you sound so sure of the perfection of your own inductive science.

Art: Your point is valid to some extent. You fail to appreciate how science works. Einstein did not develop his relativity theory "by means of a mechanicist succession of empirical cause-effect (*) is pure logos-enthusiastic self-delusion." Science depends on induction as well as deduction. Induction advances our understanding of cause and effect by creative leaps of reason that go beyond the known (mechanistic cause and effect) into the unknown as E=MCC did. Now these leaps must be validated deductively and empirically as a reality check. Would you base your ideas on unrealistic imagination divorced from reality.

The problem is a duality between the classicasl universe of material particles and the non-particle universe of sub-quantum and some quantum events outside space/time. This is a ,material and non-material duality. We can understand the non-material from our vantage point of the material: E=MCC is an understanding of the non-material as it interfaces with the material.

Wild imagination does not so interface.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have heard Charlie Parker on a plastic sax poorly recorded. And it definitely sounds better than any other saxophonist whoever lived. If you want to talk about faulty clarinets that cant even make a sound, thats a different story. But if the notes are right, the notes are right. doesnt matter how they sound.

Doesn't matter how they sound? Hmmm....

Quote:

How much magic? A 1/10 of a percent? Maybe I'll give you that. Any more and you cease being a music fan, and become simply an audio fan.

If I give Parker a flute is it going to be magical? If you don't have the right tools NO MATTER the artist, you are going to lose out. All I'm saying is that more of the "magic" can be relayed properly given the right audio instruments and tools.

Again, give Parker the KayBee plastic sax, it ain't nearly going to be AS magical...its amazing how many musicians just really don't quite grasp the impact of acoustics...

 

[The Monkey]

A lot of tripe in this thread.

 

[Trogdor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif Trogdor: Merovingian, can we please stay on topic? I reject the SA5K's are the one. Art: I also reject this idea.

If you knew what I was talking about...

Quote:

Trogdor: Your rejection of existentialism is well noted as well as your fervent belief in a God (drarthurwells is walking straight into a religious argument). Art: I believe in God as causality - as science will come to understand over time. I believe tha tinformation and datas processing at sub-quantum and quantum levels runs the material universe - governs causality - as science is increasingly coming to understand. The sub-quantum is an immaterial realm where time/space is simultaneos and everywhere at once.

Neat, when we get back on topic, please wake me up....I will not debate mystical revelations about the quantum universe.

Quote:

Trogdor: Aman's point is just dumb. I agree that its an arrogant and snobbish attitude in that it perpetuates this myth that if you create music you have some sort of deeper love for it than someone who listens to it or even conducts it. Art: Reatarded? Derogatory name calling is an argument against a postion? I would agree with Aman that if you create music you more likely understand it better than someone who does not create it, and that greater understanding is the basis of greater musical appreciation. Thus who who create music are more likely to appreciate it relative to those who don't - Amans's point - and this is dumb?

I call it as I see it. And yes...dumb...the assumption that because you know how to perform jazz music (perhaps badly in some cases) suddenly gives you greater appreciation for music or EVEN ALL TYPES of MUSIC is dumb. The way it was even presented as many have said was arrogant and snobbish.

I could be wrong but I got the vibe of "oooo, I'm part of the avant-garde jazz scene in the village so I know more and love music more than you do...." Its childish at best.

My mother who is a Juliard graduate harpist and life long teacher and performer doesn't know a damn thing about jazz, most of rock'n'roll and certainly heavy metal.

Finally, I noticed that Art, you constantly neglect to use the QUOTE function on this board effectively and repeat prior posts. Is this some kind of bad habit?

 

[neilvg]

DrArthurWells: Clearly you are trying to tell us something. The desire to stand up on a pedestal and extol your beliefs (both in thought and experience), especially those relating to (some vague notion) of the science of quantum physics and mechanics, shows that, to some degree, you have a desire to communicate [something].

I may have a lot to say, let's say, concerning, Buddhism [which to a high correlatory degree, speaks about much of the same territory that you are speaking...] however, using your own learned syntax and interpretation, it can be difficult for others to follow closely with what you are speaking about -which in turn generates the tendency [for us] to pick out only key words and make sense of them on this, very, cursory level [especially without *qualification* apriori).

This type of interpretation is bound to create a large noise to signal ratio. Noise being the misinterpretation of the signal, which is, to be specific, your original intent (and intention, of communicating *something).

Now, from what I have gathered through my own observations, those who generally have something to say (irrespective of a receiving audience, but in spite of it, or maybe, because of it), tend to feel the obligation to speak purely due to their own need to speak... for their own sake...

*So I ask of you for one thing, since clearly, verbosity is not an issue with you: In two sentences or less, sum up everything it is you have been trying to say. Or instead of 'no-thing', is it the inherent emptiness of existence you have been trying to profess... or rather that is to say, the inherent existence born from emptiness, the ground of being from which all unborn manifest and unmanifest phenomena arise?

Neil