Jump to content

Tatl

  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tatl

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. easy shot, proving my point
  2. 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 everywhere, there is a dogmatic ridicule pressed on people with hunches, or intuitive thoughts, because they aren't "scientific". When really, they're just not developed. There is DEEP VALUE to intuition. That's really all "subjectivists" are arguing. "Albert Einstein called the intuitive or metaphoric mind a sacred gift. He added that the rational mind was a faithful servant. It is paradoxical that in the context of modern life we have begun to worship the servant and defile the divine." ^thats the whole point. We just notice, in general, in internet forum culture, there is just a shunning of the intuitive mind. A disrespect. People take "easy shots" at those with undeveloped ideas, or unique or "weird" impressions, when they could flower into fruitful new directions, etc.
  3. 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 smartphone revolution currently exploding. They probably already do this well in certain military sectors, etc. My guess is that all these "digital chain" improvements which are so focused on on this site have to do with inadvertent improvements in RFI isolation and mains noise isolation. And that if we understood these processes more specifically, we could capture the problem entirely instead of just having a constantly rotating cast of new boxes taking a whack at it.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 messing around with my power mains. I wouldn't know where to start! Maybe you could even sell modded gear? Custom tweaked to conjure?? Relatively inexpensive? From your blog, I get the impression that RFI shielding will have to be figured out more solidly to achieve "robustness". You seem to live in an area with not many smartphones or wifi, whereas most folks are swarmed. And you note that one iphone in the home can kill your systems conjuring ability. How to guard against this? It seems like you focus on: -eliminating RFI -Eliminating ground loops -AC noise -Replacing certain key circuit components -Interconnects issues The impression that I get from your writing is that.......what really lets a system conjure is for it to be noise-free. Would you agree?
  7. you guys are all eggs and no steak. 😫
  8. 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..
  9. 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 is -direct- and -naked-. Corporeal and palpable. "In the room" explicit. He is allergic to sheen or gloss. His writing asserts that there must still be technological aspects essential to convincing playback that we haven't yet learned to measure, since systems with textbook A+ measurements can still lack this elusive naked quality. Herb prizes this directness over perfect frequency response, dynamic response, or resolution. For him, it is its own parameter with its own merit, and its origin and relation to the others remains mysterious, though he is constantly investigating. Systems that check other boxes, but lack this essential quality, are for Herb false and deceptive, since they offer everything but the soul of the music. Now of course, there are many in the audio world who feel this way, or who perhaps feel similarly about some other quality they've discerned. Most people call them "subjectivists". To me...it seems like they're misunderstood. Their general claim is simply: we haven't learned to measure everything that's important, so one has to keep an open mind and seek undiscovered correlations. We hear differences outside of what is reflected in the measurements. Philosophically speaking, any measurement that reliably correlates to reality, ever made, in any science, was initially correlated to the human subjective senses, or rests on proofs, which ultimately rest on correlations to our naked senses. The most basic proof for 1+1=2 is that you can pick up one twig, pick up another, and there, you have two twigs in your hand. The subjective layer is the FIRST data layer. You always view numbers on pages THROUGH this layer, and interpret them through mental proofs BASED on it. All accepted science is based on subjective impressions our ancestors agreed on. Even the number one is based on subjective experience. The experience of a whole. The experience that an object can be separate from it's environment in the first place. The experience that a pebble is a separate thing from the air or water around it, and that it has a high enough degree of self-consistency to be given a name at all. It seems wildly arrogant to assert "we're at the end of audio science" the way "objectivists" do. What if we aren't? In the past, whenever we thought we were, in any field, were we? No. It's not an intelligent position to take, as far as I'm concerned. Staunch objectivists make a wager: "I bet our theories are perfect." Does that seem like a good bet? The measurements obsession, in my view, and the philosophy it begets, becomes a kind of fascism that grows in the mind. One ends up losing trust for one's sensory impressions, and dogmatizing the impressions of others. OBVIOUSLY blind tests are better. Obviously people's minds can trick them. Obviously measurements are useful. But the fact is, with self-awareness and curious self-skepticism, one can improve one's recognition of sound, in incredibly various ways. We aren't aware of the limits. There are hearing masters who slay blind tests. Charles Hansen posted about a man he knew who could reliably make insane calls blind, including about gear riser materials, etc. In science, data has to be critically interpreted, and fit into hypotheses and theories. Data is also reinterpreted. Endlessly. It always should be. Hypotheses are recrafted and retested. Ultimately, the human is the master of science, not the tool. People seem to be forgetting this...and it honestly creeps me out. One of the most magic parts of life is that you can actually improve ALL of your senses. And you can have a critical, evolving relationship with how you interpret them. It's amazing. You don't need to be a measurement machine's bitch, or a slave to whatever theories are in hegemony. You get to develop your own experience and your own ideas. You can actually plumb the depths of human sense down paths no one has gone before. And you can craft interpretations which are entirely new. Forever. We ought to hammer this out more so we don't lose more folks to the personless, non-critical void.
×
×
  • Create New...