Objectivists board room

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by joe bloggs, May 28, 2015.

  1. castleofargh Contributor

    this is absolutely ludicrous. when we leave such nonsense unchecked, we're hurting the world by our inaction. I mean who films vertically in 2017?
     
  2. RRod
    This is why Poe's Law exists I guess.
     
    castleofargh likes this.
  3. reginalb
    I thought that was satirical, and the guy making the video might have been, but looking over the channel I'm not so cure that the person posting it is being satirical.

    Man, there's probably a big market for all of this. Start a Youtube channel with reasonable production value all about the flat earth, advertise for it on InfoWars, have an audio division that sells ultra high end MP3 players (something you could really do on the cheap if you knew what you were doing - buy some cheap hardware, and don't even bother with something fancy like Android, just write a custom skin for Rockbox and you'd be good to go). You could probably make some good money. But it would be blood money.
     
  4. alex_aiwa_USA
    For the flat earth crowd, that's not the way to go. They don't care about sound quality or anything. You need to impute that "the elites" or "the illuminati" are embedding mind control frequencies in all digital music, and you need a special music player to remove the frequencies. These mind control frequencies are inevitably intended to make people homosexual, pedophiles, liberal, etc. It would be something like "binaural beats affect your mind, MP3 DIGITAL AUDIO is implanted with BINAURAL BRAINWAVE FREQUENCY DIFFERENTIALS of 88.3 HZ which causes PATHOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR and MIND CONTROL. Apple, Google, et al are involved in a conspiracy with GLOBALIST NWO conspirators to use your favorite music to CONTROL YOUR MIND WITH BINAURAL DETUNING. We have created this MP3 player with NATURAL ANALOG FILTERS to RE-ALIGN the NATURAL, PURE music and FREE YOUR MIND FROM ILLUMINATI DOMINION with the original, re-tuned, frequency aligned music."

    You would go along with this binaural thing, naturally citing a (completely made up) study by a (fictional) scientist who was eventually assassinated for his work on mind control frequencies. This would be part and parcel of the marketing used among this crowd.

    This would also be blood money.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2017
  5. castleofargh Contributor
    Jordan klepper is that you?
     
  6. reginalb
    I was actually referring to separate ventures as separate business units in a parent company implying philosophical (but not practical) unity between the camps of flat-earthers and audiophiles.

    But your idea is WAY better.
     
  7. JaeYoon
    So I got a product for review by another company.

    Now everytime, I recommend things for firmware update that will make things easier for other customers. They use sound quality as a smokescreen, Oh that's easy to implement, but we are afraid making any changes such as this would reduce sound quality in the firmware.

    "making the machine to accept unlimited folder count is easy but it may affect the overall coding and sound"

    is this for real!?
    I recommended AAC support on the device and I got this.
    " i guess no.... since adopting new codec always hinder the sound quality, as these codecs always cause huge loads on cpu/ caching or whatever that will introduce more disturbance to the system (unless the system has good calculation power)"
    :sob::sob::sob:
     
  8. bigshot
    I would think that if they don't support AAC now, it's probably because their DAC chip doesn't support it. They would have to replace the DAC itself to fix that. Why anyone would use a DAC chip that doesn't support as many formats as possible is beyond me though.
     
    JaeYoon likes this.
  9. castleofargh Contributor
    if they're on the fence about memory or GPU, then allocating more for extra stuff might perhaps end up being an issue with say highres formats.
    a good example of perceiving less as better was illustrated IMO with ipods. no bug, smooth everything, even to this day it's seen by many as a DAP done right. on the other hand everything was made to work one way and only one, so it was easier to avoid issues. at the same time, the DAPs trying to play 10 different formats with compatibility with everything, they often had more or less serious issues, some crap audio with OGG, some freeze because of certain tags or cover formats... the ipod didn't have those issues in part because it wasn't even trying to support those stuff in the first place. doing more does open the door for more potential issues.

    but in the end, if the consumer wants stuff, not providing them is a mistake when you don't have wizard level marketing "it's a feature!".
     
    JaeYoon and analogsurviver like this.
  10. JaeYoon
    Hey everyone. I asked the company if they have any measurements on their audio player.

    They said via email yes but they do not want to release the specs.

    Is this due to competition protection or some practical purpose?

    Or
     
  11. orderingrabbits
    Can somebody explain to me any audible detriments of using EQ to neutralize low distortion headphones? I've read many sources which suggest phase error or any other errors created by EQ are inaudible. Does anyone have an argument otherwise from an objectivist point of view? T h a n k s

    I've uh, run out of headphones to buy because of EQ.
     
  12. castleofargh Contributor
    to be clear, an EQ's main purpose is to alter the signature, not to remove distortions. because changing the signature can have a great deal of consequences, distortions can actually go up, or down, or not change much depending on the headphone. you have to measure to know what's really happening, even more so when your EQ is significant. magnitudes do matter.

    then about critics of the evil EQ destroyer of all good sound, that so many show on the web. almost all the time if you ask questions you'll realize that it's ignorance turning into prejudice and phobia. some anecdote of misusing EQ, some super specific scenario where the signal ended up clipped. or the amp was already at its output limit, so compensating for the EQ boost ended up with lots of disto. or simply they used the crappiest EQ ever made, moved stuff randomly for 5mn like a crazy person, then decided they knew all there was to know about EQ. so yeah you can guess from my tone, that I don't believe you should listen to those guys.
    distortions aren't brought up by EQ(or at levels so low it's laughable compared to the playback system's resolution), distortions can come from forcing the amp or the headphone to do something it cannot do. again a better understanding and ideally a few measurements can greatly reduce the occurrence of such extreme situations.
    those who cry about phase shift and pre ringing, well again, there are nowadays digital EQs which can simulate a lot of different filters and by doing so, manage ringing the way we want to, or avoid phase shift.
    same thing for those saying it changes the imaging. changing a signature will change the "headstage" because the signature is part of the cues our brain uses, so it's a dumb argument. if the signature is bogus, then you need to correct it to get the cues you should perceive(well stereo and headphones is a can of worm, so let's call it one wrong vs another wrong). as for the more obvious changes in position from certain types of filters, the answer is simple, use another type of filter. problem solved. again, a little learning can go a long way.

    so EQ does what it does, it's a tool so some people do better using it than others, and practice does count. ultimately as any tool, it is not magical and cannot do everything. sometimes a headphone is already on edge when it comes to distortions, and pushing a frequency louder ends up bringing the mess at a clearly audible level.
    an EQ isn't a tool to compensate a massive rool off. if the headphone rolls off that much it can be because of physical limitations that a little electrical boost can't compensate it sometimes makes things worst. so circumstances dictate what we want and can do like for anything.
    but taking advice about EQ from those who don't know anything and have close to no experience isn't a good idea. that's like giving make up to a lumberjack, and when he comes out looking as if Pennywise was changing career in favor of cheap prostitution, he's say, "make up is horrible and the result is always bad".
    if headphones were all custom tuned for my ears, I'd probably join the group of people telling not to use EQ, but until that day comes(and it won't), I find it strange to stick to an annoying signature on purpose from fear that maybe something else less audible will happen. I can't understand it and I use EQ all the time.
     
    JaeYoon likes this.
  13. reginalb
    Well, firstly, the iPod did as well as it did partially because of marketing, partially because it was first, but not because of lack of format support. Most formats are supported in iTunes and automagically transcoded when you sync your device. Especially at a time when most consumers were using iTunes to get their music any way. Now most people use their phones, and I'd bet 90% of the consumer market doesn't know or care what formats are supported. That said, it certainly does hurt, most everyone has the issues you're referring to figured out with even the lesser-known formats. Though I'll admit, I don't have ogg in my library any more for the exact reasons you're calling out.

    You aren't going to hear many arguments in this section against EQ.
     
    JaeYoon likes this.
  14. castleofargh Contributor
    not sure using one software that converts everything to the motherland approved format is my idea of format and feature support. but I mentioned ipod because it's IMO emblematic of more with less as a rare winning solution. sony was doing the same but poorly with the sonicstage garbage and ATRAC. you'd feed it anything and it would convert "on the fly"(as in 20mn^_^) to put something in the DAP that would actually play.
     
    JaeYoon likes this.
  15. reginalb
    Well, it's not my idea of format and feature support either, but we're not the normal market. I've owned a couple of iPods (I had the 3rd generation, and the first generation iPod touch), and I've owned 3 shuffles (2 of them for waterproofing so I could wear them on my goggles swimming laps and 1 because I won it in a contest), in this rambling stream of consciousness I've realized that my original point, that I haven't owned many of them unlike most consumers - is incorrect. I've probably owned a few more than most consumers. But you get my point, we're not normal consumers of media players, and I've clearly owned too many of them. But most people want their library to load to the device, and don't care how that happens. And I remember owning an iPod and a Microsoft Zune HD at one point, and even though the Zune supported many more formats than the iPod, it was still a bigger pain to get music on to because the Zune software didn't transcode seamlessly like iTunes does.
     

Share This Page