What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[StudioGuy]

I think exactly the same, for me the truth lies only in my own ears. I can look at measurements or other people's opinions only for reference. No numbers can replace or compete with what I hear. To trust numbers and not trust your own ears is foolish, and I feel sorry for such people. But they are not to blame for their weakness and lack of self respect. It is what it is.

And again, continuing from the previous post: "The truth lies only in my own ears" contradicts over a century of anatomy, neuroscience and psychoacoustics, and what reliable evidence can you present to counter this wealth of verified science? Not to mention the countless times when audiophiles have claimed the truth of their ears but controlled (double blind) listening tests have proved their claims false.

Also again, "No numbers can replace or compete with what I hear" is obviously false because digital audio is just numbers, so what you hear is obviously entirely defined by numbers, unless you think that when listening to a digital audio recording you're not hearing any of that recording, what you're hearing is everything but that recording? What do you think digital audio is, if it's not numbers? The real "weakness and lack of self respect" here and indeed lack of respect for the actual facts or for anyone else, is in apparently not understanding the most basic fact of what digital audio is but arguing about it anyway!

For anyone else interested; AS and Harry have unwittingly raised an interesting point. So much of how audio recordings are made and how they work is about fooling human ears, and we have numerous tools to aid in creating these aural illusions/perceptual effects; compression, relative levels, reverb, EQ, automation, sampling, synthesis, saturation/distortion and countless others besides. However, by definition these illusions/perceptual effects are not individual audio properties, and in some cases are not related to any audio property. Therefore, with extremely few exceptions, we cannot directly (or even indirectly in some cases) measure them, so obviously when creating recordings we cannot go by measurements where there aren't any measurements, for questions of perceptual effects/illusions, we obviously have to go by our own perception and our judgement of the perception of others. A tricky part of training sound/music engineers is to get them to ignore the readout/measurements of the tool/s they're applying and use their perception "ears" when judging perceptual effects, hence the famous Joe Meek quote when mixing to "use your ears, not your eyes".

Engineers are trained to know the difference between the objective truth and perceptual effects/illusions but audiophile marketing has deliberately confused this issue for over half a century, even to the point that many/most audiophiles don't even realise there is a difference, as demonstrated by the two posters quoted. But their belief in the truth of their "ears" inevitably leads to a cognitive dissonance and ridiculous claims or self contradictions.

[ritter]

Gentlemen. It is clear the positions here are unreconcilable. Some members consider their ears and subjective appreciations to be absolute law, and will not yield to any objectivist and scientific arguments. Furthermore, they have stated that they are not interested in those arguments, which they're perfectly entitled to ignore.

So, once again, please make your points, but refrain from attacking or ridiculing other members (and I'm looking at both sides of the aisle here). If nastiness erupts, you guessed it... the thread will be locked once again.

Thanks! 

[Florestan]

Screw formulae and measurements, I trust my own eyes: the Sun most decidedly revolves around the Earth.

[ritter]

Et tu, Florestane?

[AnotherSpin]

You are not your mind? Are you out of your mind!?  Your mind besides what matters to you. Your mind imagines things to interpret all the information provided by your senses.   

Sorry, what formulas? I have been talking about general principles, not exact formulas. These general principles are based partly on my own experiences, partly common sense and partly from the opionion of people who know what they are talking about.

I do trust myself in some things, but I am only a human being and I have my weaknesses. As a mildly autistic and very introverted person, I struggle with social interaction for example. Many social norms are stupid nuisances to me.

What do you think science is? Just lies? Science has to prove things. Science is about testable claims. You can test those claims yourself in theory. Didn't you do science tests in school to learn this principle? Have you ever asked, if it is actually you wearing the rose-tinted glasses yourself?

No, I am not my mind. I am the one who uses the mind when it is needed. And that need does not arise all the time, only when required. The mind is just a tool, and not the only one. Do you think every second of every minute, twenty-four hours a day? Of course not. When you are not thinking, do you stop existing? Of course not. Do you listen to music with the mind?

Formulas = measurements.

Everyone has weaknesses, and that is perfectly fine. You have only yourself, and no one else can take on your role better than you. The Academy Award for the role of you belongs to you. It is simply a role, the part each of us plays in the apparent world, the role of being someone with this or that particular personal history.

I never said that science is a lie. Science, like the mind, is a useful tool for practical purposes. It also evolves, and often it does so by rejecting what it was once based on. You know the examples, I'm sure. But science cannot explain many of the most important things. It cannot explain love, or God, or why there is something rather than nothing. Nor can it explain why some people listen to Tangerine Dream and not to Kiss.

[Florestan]

The anti-science rants here remind me of how early Protestants accused the Church of trying to suppress the Bible, without for a moment pausing to consider that it's precisely the Church that assembled the Bible.

[AnotherSpin]

Gentlemen. It is clear the positions here are unreconcilable. Some members consider their ears and subjective appreciations to be absolute law, and will not yield to any objectivist and scientific arguments. Furthermore, they have stated that they are not interested in those arguments, which they're perfectly entitled to ignore.

So, once again, please make your points, but refrain from attacking or ridiculing other members (and I'm looking at both sides of the aisle here). If nastiness erupts, you guessed it... the thread will be locked once again.

Thanks! 

As for me, I absolutely don't mind what's going on in this thread. If people believe in science or in formulas, God help them.

[Fëanor]

...
For anyone else interested; AS and Harry have unwittingly raised an interesting point. So much of how audio recordings are made and how they work is about fooling human ears, and we have numerous tools to aid in creating these aural illusions/perceptual effects; compression, relative levels, reverb, EQ, automation, sampling, synthesis, saturation/distortion and countless others besides. However, by definition these illusions/perceptual effects are not individual audio properties, and in some cases are not related to any audio property. Therefore, with extremely few exceptions, we cannot directly (or even indirectly in some cases) measure them, so obviously when creating recordings we cannot go by measurements where there aren't any measurements, for questions of perceptual effects/illusions, we obviously have to go by our own perception and our judgement of the perception of others. A tricky part of training sound/music engineers is to get them to ignore the readout/measurements of the tool/s they're applying and use their perception "ears" when judging perceptual effects, hence the famous Joe Meek quote when mixing to "use your ears, not your eyes".

I hope subjectivists and objectivists are both willing to agree that recordings vary in quality technically as well as esthetically.  Reproduction components may alter the sound more or less subtly, but with given components the resulting alteration will always be the same.  Thus a system that alters the sound may improve the experience of one recording but degrade it for another.

An audiophile may argue that the alternations his components make benefit for more recordings that they harm.  That's his/her conclusion and choice, but I would caution that esthetic preferences may shit requiring continually component changes.

My personal course is to choose a reproduction chain that delivers the inherent sound of a recording be it good, bad, or indifferent.

[Todd]

My personal course is to choose a reproduction chain that delivers the inherent sound of a recording be it good, bad, or indifferent.

Reproducing recordings as accurately as possible would necessitate the use of professional audio equipment.  Audiophile equipment distorts sound.  Pro gear lacks the non-audio traits that audiophile gear offers - fancy finishes, arty cabinet designs, exotic components, and, of course, fictional claims about the impact of those design elements.

[AnotherSpin]

I hope subjectivists and objectivists are both willing to agree that recordings vary in quality technically as well as esthetically.  Reproduction components may alter the sound more or less subtly, but with given components the resulting alteration will always be the same.  Thus a system that alters the sound may improve the experience of one recording but degrade it for another.

An audiophile may argue that the alternations his components make benefit for more recordings that they harm.  That's his/her conclusion and choice, but I would caution that esthetic preferences may shit requiring continually component changes.

My personal course is to choose a reproduction chain that delivers the inherent sound of a recording be it good, bad, or indifferent.

I would be perfectly happy with a playback system that makes listening to music enjoyable.

Naturally, as long as the music wasn't written by some degenerate, or someone who spent their time thinking about which note would come next

[Florestan]

One doesn't "believe in" science. One trusts science to (1) give a fairly accurate account of how the different components of the material world work and behave, and (2) create tools for manipulating said work and behavior to our advantage and profit. It is concerned with the "how", not with the "why". Love, God and why there is anything rather than nothing lie outside its province and it's matter for theology, philosophy and art. No scientist worth his salt ever claimed otherwise.

[71 dB]

No, I am not my mind. I am the one who uses the mind when it is needed. And that need does not arise all the time, only when required. The mind is just a tool, and not the only one. Do you think every second of every minute, twenty-four hours a day? Of course not. When you are not thinking, do you stop existing? Of course not. Do you listen to music with the mind?

We seem to have a different idea of what mind is. How are supposed to appreciate the beauty of music without mind? A rock doesn't have a mind and can't enjoy music. I have a mind and I can.

Formulas = measurements.

You re-define words. Formulas are different things than measurements. You may need formulas to conduct measurements and vice versa, but that doesn't make the same thing!

Everyone has weaknesses, and that is perfectly fine. You have only yourself, and no one else can take on your role better than you. The Academy Award for the role of you belongs to you. It is simply a role, the part each of us plays in the apparent world, the role of being someone with this or that particular personal history.

I agree. I was just acknowledging my weaknesses and strengths.

I never said that science is a lie. Science, like the mind, is a useful tool for practical purposes. It also evolves, and often it does so by rejecting what it was once based on.

Yes, but often the "rejected" models are not completely contradictory to the new models. Instead the new models are often refined versions of the older model.

You know the examples, I'm sure. But science cannot explain many of the most important things. It cannot explain love, or God, or why there is something rather than nothing. Nor can it explain why some people listen to Tangerine Dream and not to Kiss.

Science can't explain love? Isn't it a chemical reaction in our brain causing a certain type of insanity according to science?

Science can explain pretty well how the existence of God is unnecessary (as far as I understand it the laws of quantum physics dictate that the probability of nothing existing is 0 % while the probability of something existing is 100 %. That's why something, our universe, exists. No need for God and no need to explain who greated God. We can call quantum physic God of course, but in the case God is completely different from what religions claim God to be.) Why would it even try to explain God? It doesn't try to explain the flying spagetti monster or the about 4000 other Gods invented by mankind for the same reason.

[Florestan]

Science can't explain love? Isn't it a chemical reaction in our brain causing a certain type of insanity according to science?

Have you ever been in love?

"Chemical reaction in the brain" --- that's exactly the "how". As to the "why", science does and can say nothing.

To paraphrase Pascal, whose mind (yes, mind!) was one of the sharpest and sanest that ever graced the sublunary world, "there are two errors: to exclude science, to admit nothing but science".

Science can explain pretty well how the existence of God is unnecessary (as far as I understand it the laws of quantum physics dictate that the probability of nothing existing is 0 % while the probability of something existing is 100 %. That's why something, our universe, exists. No need for God and no need to explain who greated God. We can call quantum physic God of course, but in the case God is completely different from what religions claim God to be.) Why would it even try to explain God? It doesn't try to explain the flying spagetti monster or the about 4000 other Gods invented by mankind for the same reason.

This crude positivism held common currency in the late 19th century. It has been long since discarded and superseded by a more balanced and healthier skepticism which applies to skepticism itself.

Besides, logic itself dictates that "unnecessary" does not automatically translate into "nonexistent".  The appendix is unnecessary  yet it exists.

Think of it this way: there is inconclusive  scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God.  It's  either faith or unbelief. Both positions have been copiously illustrated by scientists themselves.

This discussion reminds me of that splendid, most sane, humane and wise novel, Don Quijote. de la Mancha. The hero asks some peasants in an inn to acknowledge that Dulcinea of Toboso is the most beautiful woman in the world. "Show us this Dulcinea of yours and if that is indeed the case, we will!", they reply. To which the Knight of the Sad Countenance gives a magnificent reply, quoted here from memory: "If I showed her to you, what merit would you have in acknowledging the obvious?"

On a more prosaic tone, the firm belief in something for which there was no conclusive scientific proof was what made Columbus and Schliemann act the way they did.

[AnotherSpin]

We seem to have a different idea of what mind is. How are supposed to appreciate the beauty of music without mind? A rock doesn't have a mind and can't enjoy music. I have a mind and I can.
You re-define words. Formulas are different things than measurements. You may need formulas to conduct measurements and vice versa, but that doesn't make the same thing!
I agree. I was just acknowledging my weaknesses and strengths.

Yes, but often the "rejected" models are not completely contradictory to the new models. Instead the new models are often refined versions of the older model.

Science can't explain love? Isn't it a chemical reaction in our brain causing a certain type of insanity according to science?

Science can explain pretty well how the existence of God is unnecessary (as far as I understand it the laws of quantum physics dictate that the probability of nothing existing is 0 % while the probability of something existing is 100 %. That's why something, our universe, exists. No need for God and no need to explain who greated God. We can call quantum physic God of course, but in the case God is completely different from what religions claim God to be.) Why would it even try to explain God? It doesn't try to explain the flying spagetti monster or the about 4000 other Gods invented by mankind for the same reason.

I don't mean the God of religions and books, I mean the God we experience directly.

The mind can try to dissect beauty into elements to understand what it is made of, but it cannot experience beauty here and now. Mind only comments on what is already gone.

[71 dB]

I don't mean the God of religions and books, I mean the God we experience directly.

Why should we call what we experience directly God? Why can't we simply call it existence?

The mind can try to dissect beauty into elements to understand what it is made of, but it cannot experience beauty here and now. Mind only comments on what is already gone.

Nonsense. Semantic gymnastics. 

[Florestan]

Why should we call what we experience directly God? Why can't we simply call it existence?

You have touched upon the eternal and insoluble conundrum of pantheism.

Nonsense. Semantic gymnastics.

Yes. And it's funny to notice that the critique of the mind is offered in words, ie language, ie a product of the mind.

And btw, I can think (pun!) of no composer who did not think about what note would come next.

[AnotherSpin]

Why should we call what we experience directly God? Why can't we simply call it existence?

Nonsense. Semantic gymnastics. 

If you prefer, you can use the word existence instead of God. They are only words, and words are always rough; they can only point to the truth, never be the truth itself. It's good that you mentioned existence. Science cannot explain why everything exists instead of not existing at all.
 
What feels like wordplay to you is, for me, completely clear and simple. See it for yourself: we can only think about what has already happened, what is in the past, but we cannot think in the now. The now is beyond the mind's reach. People even write books about this. For example, Eckhart Tolle's famous The Power of Now, which has sold in the millions of copies, argues that giving up the rule of the mind and entering the now will bring us happiness. It must be an interesting book; I tried to read it but didn't manage.

[71 dB]

I am pretty much done with this off topic discussion. Here is my last (?) reply. I feel like I have said more or less what there is to say. Hopefully the thread gets back on track and the two anti-engineers won't derail it again.

Science cannot explain why everything exists instead of not existing at all.

You don't know that. As I said, the reason why something exists seems to linked to probabilities. If the probability of nothing existing is zero, then it is not surprising something exists. Please don't make statements about things you know hardly nothing about. I don't know much either, but I try to understands these things.

Even if the explanations of science are incomplete, they are intellectually 1000 times more satisfying than the explanations of religions (divine creature(s) just created everything for whatever weird reason we are not even supposed to understand). 

What feels like wordplay to you is, for me, completely clear and simple. See it for yourself: we can only think about what has already happened, what is in the past, but we cannot think in the now. The now is beyond the mind's reach. People even write books about this. For example, Eckhart Tolle's famous The Power of Now, which has sold in the millions of copies, argues that giving up the rule of the mind and entering the now will bring us happiness. It must be an interesting book; I tried to read it but didn't manage.

Now is kind of an infinitely narrow slice of time between the past and the future. Perhaps now is too recent for us, but one millisecond in the past maybe isn't... ...I am not an expert of how mind works, but to me my mind works when I am conscious which is pretty much always.

[ritter]

We're straying way off-topic here. Just saying.

[AnotherSpin]

I am pretty much done with this off topic discussion. Here is my last (?) reply. I feel like I have said more or less what there is to say. Hopefully the thread gets back on track and the two anti-engineers won't derail it again.

You don't know that. As I said, the reason why something exists seems to linked to probabilities. If the probability of nothing existing is zero, then it is not surprising something exists. Please don't make statements about things you know hardly nothing about. I don't know much either, but I try to understands these things.

Even if the explanations of science are incomplete, they are intellectually 1000 times more satisfying than the explanations of religions (divine creature(s) just created everything for whatever weird reason we are not even supposed to understand). 

Now is kind of an infinitely narrow slice of time between the past and the future. Perhaps now is too recent for us, but one millisecond in the past maybe isn't... ...I am not an expert of how mind works, but to me my mind works when I am conscious which is pretty much always.

Religion holds even less interest for me than science. And though I am ignorant in matters scientific, I am well aware that science has not the faintest idea why the world exists; it is far better suited to explaining how the kettle boils.

The latter is no less intriguing. As I said already, the mind cannot enter the now; to the mind, the now is but a fleeting instant between past and future, both purely imaginary, of course. Yet to those released from the fetters of thought, the now is infinite and eternal. And I do not doubt that you, too, have glimpsed this truth many times, only for the restless mind to draw its veil across it. Everybody does, with the exception of a few incurable paranoiac maniacs