Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tatl

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The point of the blog is that Originally, at the beginning of science, in human history, there was NO evidence EXCEPT subjective experience. All a scientist needed to become interested in something WAS their subjectivity, and their INTUITION. Hunches, etc etc. That is the ROOT of science. And if you really push your brain to think about it, all "Hard" evidence that anyone has ever collected is ultimately BASED on subjective impressions. Really try to think about this. You still need to use your eyes when looking down a microscope, etc. These days, on the internet everyw
  2. Yes. Somehow almost everyone leaves their education without understanding this sort of thing. They don't have an archetypal idea of how the scientific process begins....and how it is edited. Subjectively. Obviously this doesn't damn measurements. Its like school plops people down into the middle of the scientific process, such that they can't see how the beginning comes about... They can't be their own scientists, they only become little scientific worker bees. I think the audio world needs better means of measuring RFI and shielding, esp with the smart
  3. I agree with all of this. I should have positioned myself and Herb not as subjectivists, but as some truer third category, to help ppl grasp what I'm trying to say. You're right about all the fear stuff. Gotta banish the fear. And invite the future. Than CURRENTLY is described....but I believe we'll get it all in numbers, etc, one day. At least enough to reliably "conjure the illusion" (fas42) that there is literally a live band in one's house, etc.
  4. I'm sad that you're both going to these places. They both miss the point of the blog, which tries to show how both positions interlink for a truer, integrated one. Maybe I should have been less...something. Nothing about what I wrote bashes science. elcorse is arguing something I'm not. I believe in "accurate" playback. I just believe it's currently beyond measurement , so we need to use our senses to get there. There's nothing wrong with adding euphony on top of accurate playback. But accurate playback is possible, imo. Improving accuracy happens.
  5. I'm aware of you, Frank! I read your old blogspot back to front, and many of your posts here. Your approach certainly interests me. Your assertion that "palpability" can be achieved at lower cost is exciting. I believe you. You remind me of old studio-technician culture. Elbow grease and intuition. Curiosity, tinkering. I think we need to try to make a catalog of "Frank Tweaks" since your approaches are so unorthodox (to most modern audiophiles). I want to know in more detail how you do what you do. I have very little experience with a soldering iron, or mes
  6. you guys are all eggs and no steak. 😫
  7. If you have a better depiction, by all means offer it here. I'm primarily interested in advancing inquiry, not throwing eggs. The eggs are just for fun. And relief..
  8. I just made an account here. First post. I'm a 26 year old musician/producer/mixer. I started taking interest in audiophile questions about two years ago, stemming from a quest for dead-accurate monitoring. I've been all over the audio internet, and I've heard a good deal of systems in person. Audiophile and pro, analog and digital, cheap and expensive. It's funny how the audiophile world and the pro world don't really like to mix, even when they're taking interest in the same questions. One of my favorite audiophile writers is Herb Reichert, because he's obsessed with sound that i
  • Create New...