IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[kumakuma]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 And considerably poorer as well ?

 

As well as divorced...

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 If you knew what his daytime job and qualifications were, perhaps you wouldn't find it so implausible ! 

Alfe has several Patents in the Optical device area, as well as previously having designed the internal LG GGW H20L BR writer that I use.

 

irrelevant  

 

 the question is whether a positive result was obtained by guessing correctly or not - not likely that someone would guess directly 19 out of 20 times (assuming it was a double-blinded test)

 

 

[mansr]

39 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Barry Diament also found that CDs from different replication plants often sounded a little different despite identical binary content. 

What model CD player did he use. I'd like to know so I can avoid gear from that clearly incompetent manufacturer.

[sandyk]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

 

irrelevant  

 

 the question is whether a positive result was obtained by guessing correctly or not - not likely that someone would guess directly 19 out of 20 times (assuming it was a double-blinded test)

 

 

 EVERYTHING is irrelevant to you unless you have personally experienced it !

 

You also know full well that the cost of organising the kinds of testing that you insist on is prohibitive and takes a great deal of time ,  thus you are highly unlikely to be proved wrong for this reason alone.

[sandyk]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

What model CD player did he use. I'd like to know so I can avoid gear from that clearly incompetent manufacturer.

 

 Given that back then, with a format that Philips and Sony claimed was perfect, I doubt that even the flag ship products  from most manufacturers of the time wouldn't  be considered less than competent these days !

Many players were 14 bit back then too.(Nakamichi included)

We have learned a lot since the days when Barry Mastered and Engineered his numerous well respected commercial recordings, many of which are in a lot of C.A. members collections.

 

Of course, we all know that you could have designed a much better CD player back then too!

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 EVERYTHING is irrelevant to you unless you have personally experienced it !

 

You also know full well that the cost of organising the kinds of testing that you insist on is prohibitive and takes a great deal of time ,  thus you are highly unlikely to be proved wrong for this reason alone.

 

wrong on both counts

[sandyk]

58 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

wrong on both counts

 

 I will let other members judge that for themselves.

You have a habit of demanding the same kind of proof in other threads and subjects too, not just to my posts.

[Ralf11]

it's not a 'judgment' issue - you know little about me

[PeterSt]

 

 

IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

IS EVERYTHING DEBATABLE, REALLY?

 

 It sometimes appears to be mass-debatable here !

Shouldn't you be terminating more USB plugs ?

 

[PeterSt]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Shouldn't you be terminating more USB plugs ?

Not at 6am on Saturdays, I suppose.

Btw, we finally managed to have a few Lushes in stock (this week for the 2nd week). So I suppose everyone has one by now. Haha.

 

Now let's continue with a debate of anything.

[PeterSt]

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I've bought the CD and have always been very disappointed because the commercial release is a pale shadow of the master.

 

George, maybe it was before your times here, but ever back (Alex will remember) I had this really great thread named "Recording Engineers, you kill our recordings" or something like that. The thread emerged because I took a recording of our own drumkit over here, in 16/44.1 and it was indistinguishable from the real thing, including the room it was in (played back somewhere else). I played it to many people, and everybody was flabbergasted. Including me myself btw. And the thread was about that.

Barry and Cookie were in there with great contributions, and personally I learned a lot of it.

 

The recording as we would do it ourselves, will never make it to "CD". That is what I learned.

 

What is most intriguing is that while this drumming recording was universes ahead of any of the 10K albums I had at the time (really no-one came remotely close, plus envision a full fletched drum kit and how ever to represent that in full through loudspeakers), today I have more examples from "CD" that come very close if not 100%. Not that the examples changed, but the playback did, vastly.

This still intrigues because how would it at first require my own non-manipulative recording, while after all we apparently are able to improve on - or dig out more from the regular ones.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

What is most intriguing is that while this drumming recording was universes ahead of any of the 10K albums I had at the time (really no-one came remotely close, plus envision a full fletched drum kit and how ever to represent that in full through loudspeakers), today I have more examples from "CD" that come very close if not 100%. Not that the examples changed, but the playback did, vastly.

This still intrigues because how would it at first require my own non-manipulative recording, while after all we apparently are able to improve on - or dig out more from the regular ones.

 

This is a very interesting phenomenon - as the system playback improves, those recordings which are "poorly done", which have, say, been dumbed down for the masses as George was pointing out, begin to lift their wretched heads ...

 

What's going is that more triggers of how the music actually sounded at the time when it was recorded peek through the mist - and our heads can interpret what "it means". How times over the years have I finally had a recording which was seriously awful when I was listened to it abruptly come good?!! Simply amazing when it happens, and you haven't seen it too many times - these days I pay no attention at all when casual playback of some unknown piece doesn't gell ... ahhh, the system isn't good enough at the moment to properly showcase that one - will play it again when the standard's up there ...

[opus101]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 If you knew what his daytime job and qualifications were, perhaps you wouldn't find it so implausible ! 

Alfe has several Patents in the Optical device area, as well as previously having designed the internal LG GGW H20L BR writer that I use.

 

Makes zero difference. The implausibility was due to me not being aware of a plausible mechanism - do you know of one or does Alfie? Given his expertise level seems he'd be well placed to test his hypothesis - I note you've not answered that question so I take it the answer is 'no' ?

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Makes zero difference. The implausibility was due to me not being aware of a plausible mechanism - do you know of one or does Alfie? Given his expertise level seems he'd be well placed to test his hypothesis - I note you've not answered that question so I take it the answer is 'no' ?

 

Who cares if you aren't aware of a plausible mechanism  ?  Certainly not me.

Alfe has strict NDA's to abide by , so you will not be getting a reply from him about his ongoing research in this area.

 He has previously confirmed other issues, as well as posting quite a few Tutorials in another area of the forum.

Try using the Search Facility and you will find some of them.

[opus101]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Who cares if you aren't aware of a plausible mechanism  ?  Certainly not me.

 

 

Feeling defensive perchance Alex?

[sandyk]

 

Quote

Feeling defensive perchance Alex?

 

Not in the least. Alfe is a good online friend of mine.

 This is a link to just one of Alfe's articles.

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/24776-optical-drive/?tab=comments#comment-450174

 

[opus101]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

Not in the least.

 

 

Please then explain the deflection onto personalities. Science as I understand it is quite impersonal?

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, opus101 said:

Science as I understand it is quite impersonal?

 

Not when I create it ?

[opus101]

You're claiming to create science?

 

<afterthought> Perhaps a modicum of clarification - I was referring to science as a methodology, that its no respecter of persons.

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Please then explain the deflection onto personalities. Science as I understand it is quite impersonal?

 

 I have better things to do than get into another useless discussion with a yet another hard line Objectivist.

 I have been doing that for > 9 years already in this forum , and no longer give a rat's rear end whether some of your crowd believe me or not.  

[opus101]

Just now, sandyk said:

 

 I have better things to do than get into another useless discussion with a yet another hard line Objectivist.

 

 

I'm tickled pink that you consider me a 'hard line Objectivist' 

 

The defense mechanism hypothesis looks to be the best one then.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, opus101 said:

You're claiming to create science?

 

Why not ?

[sandyk]

"The defense mechanism hypothesis looks to be the best one then."

 

Believe what you want. 

I don't know you from a bar of soap, so why should it bother me what you think ?

BYE !

 

[opus101]

@PeterStDo go on and explain what you mean, I'm interested...