[Andrea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I don't fail to appreciate Einstein! Einstein was the most enlightened of all scientists known to me. He was not merely a scientist. He was more complete than the 1/2 human being, so to speak, a common scientist is to me.

I can't think so well of any other scientist. Wild imagination is, once more, a product of reason...the malaise of reason? Sorry, you can apparently only conceive reason as a means of understanding (unlike Einstein!). How do you come to terms with man's self-consciousness?

(more importantly: however you name it, could you even remotely approach a rational understanding of self-consciousness?

)

 

[Andrea]

Oh, btw... It's in the very creativity implied in the inductive part of the scientific method where lies its inner wrongness-abstractness. Fiercely defending it is to declare: science is based on opinion. Because unfortunately scientists (unlike artists) are awfully often only creative in the "wild imagination" kind of way.

Me, I see it differently. I don't deny science (speaking of the science proper, not Einstein), but I see it only well suited for the "material half" of the universe (which is a inseparable unity of matter and spirit, anyway). The Unknown par excellence, science as we know it will not have the least power upon. The ultimate truths are simple (vs. the often insanely complicated views of science, phylosophy & religion), raise from the depths of man's consciousness (that's the territory us western civilisation should direct our exploration to, rather than be obsessed about exploring the space...), are innate and are undeniable.

Whereas the rational man, in his own self-delusion of absolute power, obstinately and naively seeks them around the universe through the light of reason -- that is one faible light, when voided of the other half (at worst) of the original man's light, self-consciousness. Of course when you're raised by such illusions you won't realize you've halved yourself too promptly

 

[ClieOS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltrane /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

I can't say if this can apply for everyone like me (or anyone for the matter), but for me a piece of headphone is not just a price of instrument that reproduce sound. I also see it as a piece of engineering wonder and a carefully designed and assembled mechanical magic. I appreciated the technical part of it, as well as the sound it can reproduce. I enjoy as much of knowing how titanium and rare earth magnet drive can sound differently, as the music they can reproduce. I think in the end, i am not just valuing 'phone as an object, but also the knowledge and experience that associated with this object. The same to music, i am not valuing music as notes and sound, but the feeling and experience that brought by those notes and sound (If I can't relate the music back to my own life, than no matter how hard the musician has work for it, it doesn't carry any magic for me). And so, I value both the process of obtaining the knowledge, and the experience that can be produce by such knowledge. It is not to say i will not enjoy music without good headphone, it is to say I enjoy the fun of owning/listening to headphone/amp/etc, as well as listening to good music. They reinforce each other, but no necessary need each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's in the very creativity implied in the inductive part of the scientific method where lies its inner wrongness-abstractness. Fiercely defending it is to declare: science is based on opinion. Because unfortunately scientists (unlike artists) are awfully often only creative in the "wild imagination" kind of way.

No to hijack the great debate, but as far as i understand, Isn't the use of inductive theory actually require ones first to believe in inductive theory?

 

[OpTicaL]

All leng jai meant was every human being perceives sound differently and how each pair of cans sound is subjective to each individuals' listening ability. Each human being hears and senses sound different from the other. After months of reading these forums I understand why leng jai feels the way he does. All I see is an endless cycle of nick picking on how to get the best sound quality from your headphones by spending a few hundred dollars to increase sound quality in miniscule amounts. It's like debating if the average audiophile can hear the difference between a high quality ripped mp3 and the original wav file. What it all comes down to is, can you really hear the difference or are you ****tin' yourself? Can you say to yourself it is not a placebo effect your experiencing?

 

[ferraro25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpTicaL /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's like debating if the average audiophile can hear the difference between a high quality ripped mp3 and the original wav file. What it all comes down to is, can you really hear the difference or are you ****tin' yourself? Can you say to yourself it is not a placebo effect your experiencing?

I will admit that I cannot tell the difference between .wav and 192 kbps lame-encoded .mp3 probably 99.9999...% of the time, using Foobar's "ABX two tracks" feature. This one part of a NIN track (was a while ago when I did this, cannot remember which track, but I am sure that it was a track from "The Fragile"), in an electronic bass drum, though, I could tell the difference 20/20 tries with little effort - but that was and is about it. So, 192 kbps lame-encoded .mp3 is essentially CD-quality for me.

edited to add: Having said that, I did pretty well K701 on a track lame-encoded using RazorLame with the mp3-tech.org "Transparency" setting. I used the first several seconds and found that the amount of lower bass was different, along with perhaps the sharpness of some of the higher frequencies. The track was track 19 from the "Streets of Rage Remake," a fan-made remake of the Sega Genesis "Streets or Rage" video game series. Hopefully I don't look too desperate by posting this, but it looks like "transparency" is not an accurate title, unless it means "almost total transparency."

foo_abx v1.2 report
foobar2000 v0.8.3
2007/01/23 03:36:53

File A: file://C:\Documents and Settings\Justin Ferraro\Desktop\Streets of Rage Remake - Track 19.mp3
File B: file://C:\Documents and Settings\Justin Ferraro\Desktop\Streets of Rage Remake - Track 19.wav

03:37:08 : Test started.
03:37:30 : 00/01 100.0%
03:37:36 : Trial reset.
03:38:25 : 00/01 100.0%
03:38:27 : Trial reset.
03:38:36 : 01/01 50.0%
03:38:49 : 02/02 25.0%
03:38:57 : 03/03 12.5%
03:39:05 : 04/04 6.3%
03:39:24 : 05/05 3.1%
03:39:47 : 06/06 1.6%
03:40:06 : 07/07 0.8%
03:40:17 : 07/08 3.5%
03:40:47 : 08/09 2.0%
03:40:56 : 08/10 5.5%
03:41:40 : 09/11 3.3%
03:43:00 : 10/12 1.9%
03:43:16 : 10/13 4.6%
03:44:31 : 10/14 9.0%
03:44:51 : 11/15 5.9%
03:45:04 : 11/16 10.5%
03:45:27 : 12/17 7.2%
03:45:53 : 13/18 4.8%
03:46:07 : 14/19 3.2%
03:46:16 : 15/20 2.1%
03:46:24 : 15/21 3.9%
03:47:03 : 15/22 6.7%
03:47:15 : 16/23 4.7%
03:47:51 : 16/24 7.6%
03:48:11 : Trial reset.
03:48:31 : 01/01 50.0%
03:48:51 : 02/02 25.0%
03:49:14 : 02/03 50.0%
03:50:36 : 03/04 31.3%
03:50:59 : 04/05 18.8%
03:51:32 : 04/06 34.4%
03:52:02 : 05/07 22.7%
03:52:18 : 05/08 36.3%
03:52:28 : 06/09 25.4%
03:52:36 : 07/10 17.2%
03:53:01 : 07/11 27.4%
03:53:18 : 08/12 19.4%
03:53:30 : 09/13 13.3%
03:53:46 : 10/14 9.0%
03:54:30 : 10/15 15.1%
03:54:47 : 11/16 10.5%
03:55:31 : 12/17 7.2%
03:57:10 : 13/18 4.8%
03:57:26 : 14/19 3.2%
03:57:50 : 14/20 5.8%
03:57:59 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 30/46 (2.7%)