Can Bad Recordings sound Good?

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

I am unable to reject the grossness in poor rigs ... unfortunately, 😝.  It takes too much effort in applying creative imagination to reject the obvious flaws in the reproduction - so, I aim to to eliminate these, leaving my poor brain to only have to deal with those from the recording itself ... each person will always have their own take on The Truth, 😉.

Same bullpuckey, different day. Sigh!

[Teresa]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Teresa, I'm aware that people's brains work differently, and that some people can't easily, unconsciously discard audible defects in what they hear - to put it in another perspective, these are highly likely to be people who don't enjoy the benefits of the Cocktail Party Effect - meaning that if another conversation was simultaneously occurring in a room while they talking to a person, that they would find this highly stressful to deal with...

 

The Cocktail Party Effect doesn't work with me. In a crowd I can't ignore other persons talking so I can hear another, all I hear is garbled noise. I also can't read lips. If someone wants to have a conversation with me we need go to a quiet place. I do understand some people have that ability, I don't. 

 

Quote

They will be the sound of acoustic instruments in a real space - but to me they can be threadbare ... for me, at times it is akin to listening in an anechoic chamber - the 'seasoning' of extra texturing that automatically occurs in real life music making is noticeably missing.

 

Perhaps it's missing in your system. ☺️

 

No audiophile SACD or high resolution download in my collection is threadbare. Most have very realistic ambiance, the exact opposite of an anechoic chamber. Finally, accurately reproducing the correct timbre of music instruments and voices, as well as the atmosphere of the recording space is not seasoning, it's sonic accuracy.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

The Cocktail Party Effect doesn't work with me. In a crowd I can't ignore other persons talking so I can hear another, all I hear is garbled noise. I also can't read lips. If someone wants to have a conversation with me we need go to a quiet place. I do understand some people have that ability, I don't. 

 

Okay, Teresa, makes sense now why you would find audiophile recordings far more satisfying to listen to - they are "quiet places" where only the music itself figures, for you to enjoy ... you can ignore anything I say from now on - because it's not relevant to you ... 😉.

 

Quote

No audiophile SACD or high resolution download in my collection is threadbare. Most have very realistic ambiance, the exact opposite of an anechoic chamber. Finally, accurately reproducing the correct timbre of music instruments and voices, as well as the atmosphere of the recording space is not seasoning, it's sonic accuracy.

 

I enjoy the seasoning of the recording, it's the seasoning of the rig that I don't like ... if they were guilt free in doing this, then every high end system you come across would always sound the same as all the others, 🙂.

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

The Cocktail Party Effect doesn't work with me. In a crowd I can't ignore other persons talking so I can hear another, all I hear is garbled noise. I also can't read lips. If someone wants to have a conversation with me we need go to a quiet place. I do understand some people have that ability, I don't. 

 

 

Perhaps it's missing in your system. 

I have long suspected that with Frank, it’s either missing in his system, or perhaps between his ears.

13 hours ago, Teresa said:

No audiophile SACD or high resolution download in my collection is threadbare. Most have very realistic ambiance, the exact opposite of an anechoic chamber. Finally, accurately reproducing the correct timbre of music instruments and voices, as well as the atmosphere of the recording space is not seasoning, it's sonic accuracy.

Agreed. Same here. I have no idea what Frank is on about. My definition of “threadbare” in a recording is the kind of sound that I used to get from US Capitol Records LP pressings of European EMI releases on HMV, La Voix du Son Maitre and Parlophone recordings which were sold under the Angel label Her in the States. Anytime that I wanted an EMI recording, I would look for “the real“ thing in the import section of my local Tower records. These usually had gold colored adhesive stickers over the HMV labels on both the covers and the disc labels. These labels said “Odeon” on them because the HMV trademark was the same as the RCA Victor trademark here in the US: The dog Nipper looking into the acoustic gramophone horn. The Angel pressings were a pale shadow of the British pressed HMVs, the French pressed La Voix du Son Maitre, and the German pressed Parlophones. I never could find out why. Some of my audiophile friends were of the opinion that EMI shipped Capitol Records purposely lumbered cutting masters, but I don’t see their logic in doing that, so I always dismissed the notion. I think that the US mastering engineers just weren’t as good as the European ones, or had strange (to me) ideas about the cutting moves necessary to make the European masters acceptable to Stateside audiences. But, I digress because CDs changed all of that. No longer was there any difference between US and British versions of classical releases. 
Perhaps Australians get domestically mastered and manufactured versions of recordings and that’s the reason why Frank finds them “threadbare” Because they’re different from what you and I get from Audiophile labels. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense either...???

[fas42]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Agreed. Same here. I have no idea what Frank is on about. My definition of “threadbare” in a recording is the kind of sound that I used to get from US Capitol Records LP pressings of European EMI releases on HMV, La Voix du Son Maitre and Parlophone recordings which were sold under the Angel label Her in the States. Anytime that I wanted an EMI recording, I would look for “the real“ thing in the import section of my local Tower records. These usually had gold colored adhesive stickers over the HMV labels on both the covers and the disc labels. These labels said “Odeon” on them because the HMV trademark was the same as the RCA Victor trademark here in the US: The dog Nipper looking into the acoustic gramophone horn. The Angel pressings were a pale shadow of the British pressed HMVs, the French pressed La Voix du Son Maitre, and the German pressed Parlophones. I never could find out why. Some of my audiophile friends were of the opinion that EMI shipped Capitol Records purposely lumbered cutting masters, but I don’t see their logic in doing that, so I always dismissed the notion. I think that the US mastering engineers just weren’t as good as the European ones, or had strange (to me) ideas about the cutting moves necessary to make the European masters acceptable to Stateside audiences. But, I digress because CDs changed all of that. No longer was there any difference between US and British versions of classical releases. 
Perhaps Australians get domestically mastered and manufactured versions of recordings and that’s the reason why Frank finds them “threadbare” Because they’re different from what you and I get from Audiophile labels. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense either...???

 

I'm sure that if I went out, and did a very careful purchase of recordinsg ranked highly in audiophile circles, that I would get a decent bunch 😜 ... but I have had the experience too many times of finding an unknown recording irritating or boring, purely considered as a creative effort - only to find that it was, ummm, an "audiophile recording" 🙂. Finally heard Jazz at The Pawnshop, without knowing what it was ... okay, reasonable enough, but I didn't experience spasms of ecstasy during it ... have heard plenty "better", and plenty "worse", of that style of thing.

 

Talking of classical, I've largely given up on recent releases of these, from major companies - too much audible sloppiness in the care taken in the recording; you can get away with this in pop, but in classical pieces it's quite disturbing to hear how obvious it is.

[gmgraves]

44 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I'm sure that if I went out, and did a very careful purchase of recordinsg ranked highly in audiophile circles, that I would get a decent bunch 😜 ... but I have had the experience too many times of finding an unknown recording irritating or boring, purely considered as a creative effort - only to find that it was, ummm, an "audiophile recording" 🙂. Finally heard Jazz at The Pawnshop, without knowing what it was ... okay, reasonable enough, but I didn't experience spasms of ecstasy during it ... have heard plenty "better", and plenty "worse", of that style of thing.

 

Talking of classical, I've largely given up on recent releases of these, from major companies - too much audible sloppiness in the care taken in the recording; you can get away with this in pop, but in classical pieces it's quite disturbing to hear how obvious it is.

I’d love to know what titles and labels you are talking about. I don’t go out of my way to buy so-called “audiophile” recordings, but I do, inevitably have more than a few. I’ve a number of Telarcs, and they are all decent performances but technically they are variable. I have almost all of the Reference Recordings because I know the folks there and they send me copies of just about everything they produce. Never heard a Reference CD/SACD title that wasn’t musically and technically excellent. I don’t know if Chandos recordings are considered audiophile quality or not, but I find that most of them are very disappointing sonically. “Jazz at the Pawnshop” is OK, but I can do (and have done) it better.

[fas42]

Have mentioned them at various times, over the years. One that immediately comes to mind is the Delos, Water Music of the Impressionists, Rosenberger album, which is, ahem, drowning in reverb - sometimes, there can be too much of  "a good thing".

[gmgraves]

51 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Have mentioned them at various times, over the years. One that immediately comes to mind is the Delos, Water Music of the Impressionists, Rosenberger album, which is, ahem, drowning in reverb - sometimes, there can be too much of  "a good thing".

Well, first of all, Delos are not audiophile recordings. They are (were?) a small record company, that’s for sure, and their main “artist” was The Seattle (Washington) Symphony under Gerard Schwartz. They were started by my late friend John Eargle in the early ‘80’s, and while he was the recording engineer, their recordings did sound very good because Eargle was passionate about recording quality. But they didn’t cater to the audiophile market any more than does the San Francisco Symphony label whose only “artist” is the SF Symphony.

I’m not familiar with the Water Music of the Impressionists recording that you mention, but could this have been a concert recording? It’s sometimes not possible to control natural reverb in a concert environment.

How about a few more titles. Maybe we could find a recording or two that we both have. That way I could get a better handle on what you’re talking about.

[fas42]

50 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Well, first of all, Delos are not audiophile recordings.

 

No? ... How about, typing Delos audiophile into Google,and noting how many recognised audio groups, etc, think otherwise ...

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

No? ... How about, typing Delos audiophile into Google,and noting how many recognised audio groups, etc, think otherwise ...

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t really mean anything. Would you consider Naxos an audiophile label? How do you define “audiophile label”, anyway? Is that a catch-all phrase that applies to any record company that is not a “major”? Because John Eargle did not consider Delos an audiophile label, just a small record company. Of course, it may have morphed into an audiophile label after John Eargle died in the late eighties, I wouldn’t know. But it seems to be a pretty nebulous moniker, if you ask me. Many of these small record companies are merely just quality oriented. But other than the one Delos title, you still haven’t supplied me with titles of other audiophile titles that you find “threadbare”. How about it Frank?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 7/10/2020 at 3:10 AM, Teresa said:

 

This never worked for me, my ear / brain system is not able disregard such flaws.

 

I guess we can all tolerate some flaws more than others, otherwise we would be listening to very little by way of perfect music reproductions. To the extent Frank *says* he can disregard large (or even all?) recording flaws by tweaking his system I think we all very much do not believe. It does keep him busy posting it on a daily basis so he obviously enjoys that.

 

 

 

19 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

The Cocktail Party Effect doesn't work with me. In a crowd I can't ignore other persons talking so I can hear another, all I hear is garbled noise. I also can't read lips. If someone wants to have a conversation with me we need go to a quiet place. I do understand some people have that ability, I don't. 

 

The commonest reason to have difficulties hearing in a crowd would probably be presbycusis (not sure how old you). Maybe a hearing check is in order. 

 

Frank likes ASA (Cocktail party effect) as a possible explanation for his claimed special abilities.

 

At its heart ASA is about so called segregation or alternatively grouping of different auditory "objects". Sounds sources all mixed together but heard/perceived separately by virtue of each source having distinct properties. We can all do it but it doesn't follow that one sound source becomes less irritating although there is some degree of loudness "squelching" more for low frequencies. In speech this translates to about 2 to 3 dB improvement in SNR.

 

 

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t really mean anything. Would you consider Naxos an audiophile label? How do you define “audiophile label”, anyway? Is that a catch-all phrase that applies to any record company that is not a “major”? Because John Eargle did not consider Delos an audiophile label, just a small record company. Of course, it may have morphed into an audiophile label after John Eargle died in the late eighties, I wouldn’t know. But it seems to be a pretty nebulous moniker, if you ask me. Many of these small record companies are merely just quality oriented. But other than the one Delos title, you still haven’t supplied me with titles of other audiophile titles that you find “threadbare”. How about it Frank?

 

Sounds if you're confused about what an audiophile title is, George 😉 - how about we just make it recordings which have been specifically aimed at the audiophile market, or those particular recordings that audiophiles have fallen in love with, hmmm? The reality is that I only have a couple in this category, and I almost never play them - they were picked up as $1 throwaways ... I went through this very exercise before, with Teresa, and I'm not in the mood to fish them out again, right now ...

 

Note, it's been far more the case that it's someone else's recordings I've heard - and I wasn't motivated at the time to take notes of what they were, 😁.

 

3 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I guess we can all tolerate some flaws more than others, otherwise we would be listening to very little by way of perfect music reproductions. To the extent Frank *says* he can disregard large (or even all?) recording flaws by tweaking his system I think we all very much do not believe. It does keep him busy posting it on a daily basis so he obviously enjoys that.

 

 

This says that you haven't learnt how to evolve a system so that it becomes impossible to audibly detect the speaker drivers working, in the manner I have described - when you achieve this, then you can come and tell me that you still have trouble tolerating recording flaws, and I'll take you seriously 🤪.

 

I keep posting, because it annoys me greatly that the whole field of audio has gone off the rails so badly ... the current lousy attitudes to recording; piss poor PA sound abounds; ridiculous sums of money are paid for gear that still can't get it right - I'll keep pointing out that there is a viable alternative to doing all this, that ticks so many boxes, and costs reasonable money; because I wouldn't feel right about just throwing up my hands, and walking away from the scene ...

[Teresa]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

...How do you define “audiophile label”, anyway? Is that a catch-all phrase that applies to any record company that is not a “major”? Because John Eargle did not consider Delos an audiophile label, just a small record company...

 

I leave it up to the labels to self identify as an audiophile label. If they say they are then I take their word for it. I have come to call independent labels that strive to make good recordings: boutique labels.

 

Since John Eargle told you Delos was not an audiophile label then it must not be. Although Mr. Eargle has engineered many good sounding recordings.

 

I remember from LP days that audiophiles were very fond of the Harmonia Mundi recordings of the Atrium Musicae de Madrid and in response Harmonia Mundi stated they were not an audiophile label.

 

This is also why I state I prefer naturally made recordings from audiophile and boutique record companies.

[Bill Brown]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

the current lousy attitudes to recording; piss poor PA sound abounds

 

We finally agree on something!

 

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Sounds if you're confused about what an audiophile title is, George 😉 - how about we just make it recordings which have been specifically aimed at the audiophile market, or those particular recordings that audiophiles have fallen in love with, hmmm? The reality is that I only have a couple in this category, and I almost never play them - they were picked up as $1 throwaways ... I went through this very exercise before, with Teresa, and I'm not in the mood to fish them out again, right now ...

 

 

Quote

Note, it's been far more the case that it's someone else's recordings I've heard - and I wasn't motivated at the time to take notes of what they were, 😁.

 

So, IOW, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that audiophile recordings all sound “threadbare”.

 

Quote

 

This says that you haven't learnt how to evolve a system so that it becomes impossible to audibly detect the speaker drivers working, in the manner I have described - when you achieve this, then you can come and tell me that you still have trouble tolerating recording flaws, and I'll take you seriously 🤪.

No, it says the same thing it always says, Frank. You are a One Note Samba, and you are full of it.

Quote

 

I keep posting, because it annoys me greatly that the whole field of audio has gone off the rails so badly ... the current lousy attitudes to recording; piss poor PA sound abounds; ridiculous sums of money are paid for gear that still can't get it right - I'll keep pointing out that there is a viable alternative to doing all this, that ticks so many boxes, and costs reasonable money; because I wouldn't feel right about just throwing up my hands, and walking away from the scene ...

What you seem to overlook is that the belief that whole field of audio has “gone off the rails” is a belief that you do not share with other audio enthusiast. You find flaws in playback that most of the rest of us simply do not encounter. You seem to be unhappy with audio system performance that most other people consider state-of-the-art.

Take my situation, for instance. When I play a well recorded piano solo on my system (like those recorded by our friend Mario Martinez at PlayClassics.com), with the lights out, there are literally no clues, audible or visual to tell me that the grand piano being played isn’t in the room with me! You talk about “your method“ endlessly, and how systems that don’t adhere to your method, are severely compromised. Yet, when I play Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me. To me that’s what audio is all about; the palpable reproduction of musical events in one’s home. Of course, large works, symphony orchestras, big bands, etc., aren’t there to the extent that smaller works are, the illusion doesn’t scale well at all, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t sound excellent anyway. They just can’t be as palpably in the room as can small intimate performances, but, of course, it’s dreaming to think that they could. Just as one can’t fit an 80 piece symphony orchestra in one’s living room (well, most people can’t, anyway), one can’t realistically fit the sound of an 80 piece symphony orchestra in one’s living room either.

My point is that if one’s system can reproduce a concert grand piano in a way that’s THAT palpably real, then the kind of tweaks that you go on endlessly about, simply aren’t necessary. 

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I leave it up to the labels to self identify as an audiophile label. If they say they are then I take their word for it. I have come to call independent labels that strive to make good recordings: boutique labels.

 

Since John Eargle told you Delos was not an audiophile label then it must not be. Although Mr. Eargle has engineered many good sounding recordings.

 

I remember from LP days that audiophiles were very fond of the Harmonia Mundi recordings of the Atrium Musicae de Madrid and in response Harmonia Mundi stated they were not an audiophile label.

 

This is also why I state I prefer naturally made recordings from audiophile and boutique record companies.

I agree 100%, Teresa!

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

We finally agree on something!

 

How ‘bout that?(!) Something about an infinite number of monkeys behind an infinite number of typewriters!

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

So, IOW, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that audiophile recordings all sound “threadbare”.

 

All ...?? What I say is, that every time I come across a recording that I find irritating, or boring, and especially on an album owned by someone else - that the outcome is normally that it's by a label regarded by most as audiophile oriented, or, it is one beloved by audiophiles, 🙂.

 

Quote

No, it says the same thing it always says, Frank. You are a One Note Samba, and you are full of it.

What you seem to overlook is that the belief that whole field of audio has “gone off the rails” is a belief that you do not share with other audio enthusiast. You find flaws in playback that most of the rest of us simply do not encounter. You seem to be unhappy with audio system performance that most other people consider state-of-the-art.

 

You do find flaws, George ... but, as most do, you ascribe the issues to the quality of the recording - better for the ego to think this way, eh? ... I'm unhappy with audio system performance when it's on a rig that by many accounts is SOTA, but doesn't deliver ... I have heard shocking quality on setups that cost $100,000s - the equivalent in car terms is buying a brand new prestige vehicle, and finding the hood catch is jammed; you can't even look at the engine!!  (This in fact happened to a member of our family - pretty hilarious, he drove it for weeks before getting it sorted ...)

 

Quote

Take my situation, for instance. When I play a well recorded piano solo on my system (like those recorded by our friend Mario Martinez at PlayClassics.com), with the lights out, there are literally no clues, audible or visual to tell me that the grand piano being played isn’t in the room with me! You talk about “your method“ endlessly, and how systems that don’t adhere to your method, are severely compromised. Yet, when I play Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me. To me that’s what audio is all about; the palpable reproduction of musical events in one’s home. Of course, large works, symphony orchestras, big bands, etc., aren’t there to the extent that smaller works are, the illusion doesn’t scale well at all, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t sound excellent anyway. They just can’t be as palpably in the room as can small intimate performances, but, of course, it’s dreaming to think that they could. Just as one can’t fit an 80 piece symphony orchestra in one’s living room (well, most people can’t, anyway), one can’t realistically fit the sound of an 80 piece symphony orchestra in one’s living room either.

My point is that if one’s system can reproduce a concert grand piano in a way that’s THAT palpably real, then the kind of tweaks that you " simply aren’t necessary. 

 

Yes, you should get the piano right ... to that point, at this very second I have a CD of Brendel playing Schubert, recorded in the 60's, at the other end of the house - sounds good at the laptop, sounds good directly in front of the speakers.

 

Orchestras "aren't in the living room" - what happens in the best scenario is that the part of the room you're in that's on the other side of the speakers is vaporised, and gets replaced by the acoustic space of where the orchestra was recorded - and this space can be enormous; could fit multiple orchestras, if necessary 😁

 

To get this listening presentation, the sort of tweaks I "go on endlessly about" are necessary - and have been, ever since I started this journey, decades ago.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

 

You find flaws in playback that most of the rest of us simply do not encounter. You seem to be unhappy with audio system performance that most other people consider state-of-the-art.

Take my situation, for instance. When I play a well recorded piano solo on my system (like those recorded by our friend Mario Martinez at PlayClassics.com), with the lights out, there are literally no clues, audible or visual to tell me that the grand piano being played isn’t in the room with me! You talk about “your method“ endlessly, and how systems that don’t adhere to your method, are severely compromised. Yet, when I play Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me. To me that’s what audio is all about; the palpable reproduction of musical events in one’s home.

 

This is the crux of it.

It also follows for me that if we were all to hear Frank's system we would be unimpressed that - "Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me". Only Frank would assert this. For us, a case of the Emperor has no clothes.

 

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

This says that you haven't learnt how to evolve a system so that it becomes impossible to audibly detect the speaker drivers working, in the manner I have described - when you achieve this, then you can come and tell me that you still have trouble tolerating recording flaws, and I'll take you seriously 🤪.

 

No, it just means that your assertions are false if trying to apply to anyone but yourself. They are based on a logical fallacy that begs the question about your method being prerequiste to evolution of the system. If one believes this, as you do, there is no logical argument that can seemingly refute the premise because the conclusion is in the premise.One cannot reason somebody out of a place that they didn't use reason to arrive at.

[Allan F]

43 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

No, it just means that your assertions are false if trying to apply to anyone but yourself. They are based on a logical fallacy that begs the question about your method being prerequiste to evolution of the system. If one believes this, as you do, there is no logical argument that can seemingly refute the premise because the conclusion is in the premise. One cannot reason somebody out of a place that they didn't use reason to arrive at.

 

A rare example of the correct use of the term "begs the question".

[fas42]

55 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

This is the crux of it.

It also follows for me that if we were all to hear Frank's system we would be unimpressed that - "Mario’s piano recordings, or some of my own solo instrumental and small chamber group and jazz ensemble recordings, they are right there in the room with me". Only Frank would assert this. For us, a case of the Emperor has no clothes.

 

This doesn't compute - care to restate?

 

Quote

 

 

No, it just means that your assertions are false if trying to apply to anyone but yourself. They are based on a logical fallacy that begs the question about your method being prerequiste to evolution of the system. If one believes this, as you do, there is no logical argument that can seemingly refute the premise because the conclusion is in the premise.One cannot reason somebody out of a place that they didn't use reason to arrive at.

 

Did I say specifically, that "you must follow my method"? ... I have come across multiple other instances of people who didn't, ahem, "follow my method" - and they, get it ...

 

I could say, I have seen a colour TV, and it's so much more impressive than B&W - you say, well, the only TVs I have ever seen are always B&W, and therefore what you are saying is nonsense, Frank - now, where's the flaw in that little scenario?

[fas42]

Was just reminded of this,

 

Well, how about that ... a member on this very forum who "gets it"... will miracles never cease! 😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Was just reminded of this,

 

Well, how about that ... a member on this very forum who "gets it"... will miracles never cease! 😉

 

What he may be "getting" is that he started with a $50,000 server and it sounds great with or without tweaking. I missed the part where he says it makes all bad recordings sound good and he can do it with low-fi equipment.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

36 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I could say, I have seen a colour TV, and it's so much more impressive than B&W - you say, well, the only TVs I have ever seen are always B&W, and therefore what you are saying is nonsense, Frank - now, where's the flaw in that little scenario?

 

No Frank, the analogy is that you have a B&W TV but you see color.....and you're the only one !

[fas42]

21 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

No Frank, the analogy is that you have a B&W TV but you see color.....and you're the only one !

 

Dream on, David ... if you wish to hang onto blinkers, it's up to you ... 🙂