Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but none of that has to do with hearing or audio quality, like your gem example it has to do with knowledge and ignorance outside of what is observable and observed. If something sounds like X and something else like Y and we both have equal hearing and we both say X and Y, then we both heard the same thing. Now if you can say after words we heard X because it is tube driven and Y because it is SS that added piece of info has to do with ignorance or knowledge of the subject matter not what one hears.

You see, you start off so wrong in what you assume it means that I will just go my merry way, unless you do have something to teach me concerning the world of music, recording or live sound.

Edit: I guess I should go out with one last really bad example of mine.

True story:

A friend of mine is a much bigger music consumer than I am, and like me has worked and dealt with live sound (he was my engineer).

So said friend comes over and I play him a track he never heard though he knows the band. Well that was enough to start memory lane music night. In one particular song I asked him if he heard the tube crackle, he said no, never did. So, I teach him what to actually listen for, to a T on short replay. He still can't hear it. My passion has been very hard on my hearing, and with age I barely touch 13.5 kHz. His goes all the way up to 21kHz (yes, he really has golden ears, which I guess explains his presence behind the board and he was smart and bought custom sound plugs early enough, which I can't but recommend strongly). His hearing is much better than mine, yet he can't hear it, care to explain.

Much later guys

[Johnny Vinyl]

Dang! I need to check this thread more often.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

And who gets to determine that level of quality in content and gear? You or the consumer? Do you yourself let others dictate your hobbies and your level of effort in it?

not sure of your point. I just pointed out that the content can't be experienced without the gear and the two go hand in hand and explained how it works in the real world. Why do you assume it is a judgement call it is simple lowest common denominator situation and so it makes sense to care for either both equally or none equally .

One of my other sisters usually falls asleep within 3 minutes after she sits down to watch a film, often she is sleeping before the previews are done. Do I think she should care (for her own benefit) if the content and gear is crap? no since all she will see are dreams.

But if someone cares for gear but not content then it is all about showing off since he won't get the good experience that the good gear can give him (kind of like the Beats discussion) on the other hand it does not make much sense (unless it is temporary) to care about content but not gear since you won't get to enjoy as you want the good content. that both the gear and the content need to be in balance so you get the experience you want.

So, all those people who experienced "HT with proper surround and a 10' wide screen" at your place now all own a similar setup?

no, I would assume " a few had asked me ..." would have been clear that I did not mean all since if I did mean all I would have said everyone had asked me. Also if my sister had a similar set-up my niece would not have needed to come to my place, she could have had the same experience (better if you consider they have a pool and it could have been a movie and a swim) at home.

they are also not necessarily all "similar" since not everyone has the same home and budget. So for example my niece had it at my place because her parents do have and HT with surround and a projector with big screen but their HT is smaller and it would have implied she could have less friends over for her Bday party, there are also some that ended up with a nicer set-up than mine.

But the issue isn't what people have as a set-up (part of the reason that it is good to be content with what one has). But it is that you said "sheep do enjoy the content quite a lot", I don't think they do, or then they would not enjoy it a lot more when they are in my theatre or when they go to the cinema.

IMHO for example if someone says
"I am going to the cinema to watch it because I want to see it early" then maybe the content they are watching at home they are enjoying a lot


"I am going to the cinema to watch it because I want to go out with some friends and they want to see it" then maybe the content they are watching at home they are enjoying a lot


"I am going to the cinema to watch it because it deserves the big screen" then they can't be enjoying the content they are watching at home too much or they would be OK with watching this film there as well and would not feel the need to go to the cinema because it deserves better, they are just content enough for inertia.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

So said friend comes over an I play him a track he never heard though he knows the band. Well that was enough to start memory lane music night. In one particular song I asked him if he heard the tube crackle, he said no, never did. So, I teach him what to actually listen for, to a T on short replay. He still can't hear it. My passion has been very hard on my hearing, and with age I barely touch 13.5 kHz. His goes all the way up to 21kHz (he was smart and bought custom sound plugs early enough, which I can't but recommend strongly). His hearing is much better than mine, yet he can't hear it, care to explain.

well I don't know you or your friend and I was not there, so I don't know what happened during your example and so I won't even pretend to give an explanation. But hearing isn't as simple as "I barely touch 13.5 kHz. His goes all the way up to 21kHz" if you ever did a real hearing test they do different frequencies at different decibels to find the threshold of the different frequencies, there can also be holes in different frequencies. It is a bit like eye sight (simpler examples) someone can have 20/20 or 20/30 or 20/10 but that would not tie into someone being red-green colour blind or blue-yellow colour blindness.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

well I don't know you or your friend and I was not there, so I don't know what happened during your example and so I won't even pretend to give an explanation. But hearing isn't as simple as "I barely touch 13.5 kHz. His goes all the way up to 21kHz" if you ever did a real hearing test they do different frequencies at different decibels to find the threshold of the different frequencies, there can also be holes in different frequencies. It is a bit like eye sight (simpler examples) someone can have 20/20 or 20/30 or 20/10 but that would not tie into someone being red-green colour blind or blue-yellow colour blindness.

There you go assuming wrong again, and how do you think we both know our upper threshold? And while I know this could be a fabrication, there are a few members here who actually know who I'm talking about, and usually being a sound engineer involves "Golden Ears" that are more than an upper frequency threshold.

I'm sorry, but on this my friend, you lose and I'd bet a few of our members really into audio would gladly support. You just can't know it all Anthony.

Now I really am off, have better things to do.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

There you go assuming wrong again, and how do you think we both know our upper threshold? And while I know this could be a fabrication, there are a few members here who actually know who I'm talking about, and usually being a sound engineer involves "Golden Ears" that are more than an upper frequency threshold.

I'm sorry, but on this my friend, you lose and I'd bet a few of our members really into audio would gladly support. You just can't know it all Anthony.

Now I really am off, have better things to do.

I am not assuming anything. I am going with what you said

"I asked him if he heard the tube crackle, he said no, never did. So, I teach him what to actually listen for, to a T on short replay. He still can't hear it."

so there are only 4 places to start answering "why" which you asked me to answer and I obliged

1) the original statement was not true (not that I am calling you a liar but if we are naming all the possibilities a lie or a mistake is always a possibility)

2) you heard something that was not there. That would easily explain why you heard the crackle and he did not, no matter how hard he tried

3) you heard something that was there butt he did not because your hearing is better in that respect (at least at the time)

4) he lied when he said he still could not hear it.

but for some reason you decided to dismiss the only 4 obvious tracks and decided to go with either

1) due to lack of knowledge, which does not make sense since you said "So, I teach him what to actually listen for, to a T on short replay". And so after your tutelage he should have the knowledge and be able to point it out but you said "He still can't hear it"

2) lack of caring which has nothing to do with actual hearing (if a friend is talking while I am scoping out a hot babe at the end of the bar it is not because I did not and could not hear what he said but because I was not paying attention) and it does not make sense since from your description you were training him to hear the crackle in the tube and you guys were purposefully listening for that crackle.

[pentatonic]

Anthony, science can explain sound, but science can't explain music, including its sound, at least entirely. There is a question of emotional response. But if you were a musician or a very dedicated audiophile with a lifetime invested in developing a much deeper sens of understanding, you would then agree and know what I'm talking about, which you clearly don't, and I have no inclination in explaining what it took me over 40 years to develop and learn.

[Johnny Vinyl]

:d

a: I just added a new pet rock to my system, the imaging is better, a veil was lifted, bass is better, you have to get one of these!
B. I do not see how a pet rock can do any of that. Have you measured the system?
A: Why would i care about measurements? I can hear it!
B. There's no way a pet rock can do that. Without measurements, you have no proof.
A: What do you mean "no proof"? Didn't i just say i can hear a difference?
B: That is not proof. You need to run a controlled test, have somebody place and remove the pet rock several times and see if you can tell when it is there.
A: I don't need some test, i can tell it works! And i just had my friend over and he heard it too so there!
B: That's ridiculous you are both nuts. I'm just trying to save you money.
A: Ok, i found an article by the pet rock sound chief engineer. I do't understand it, but he says it aligns the molecular flow of the universe inside my room and that's why it works.
B: Sounds like marketing. What measurements did they take?
A: There's a graph, it shows ripples in the force without the pet rock that are gone when it is added. Happy now?
B: No, that is meaningless. You are all mad.
A: Well, prove it! Measure the molecular flow with and without a pet rock and see the difference! Then you can see and show us all why it works.
B: That is nuts and i don't have anything like that kind of equipment.
A: Then you can't prove it doesn't work! You're a geek with no ears!
B: You have so much expectation bias it is running out of your ears. No wonder you think you hear something.
A; snooty objectivist scumbag.
B: Ignorant gullible subjectivist.

[pentatonic]

You know John what kills me with the scientific approach to music, and you know how technical I can be. The only necessary ingredient to evolve in sound is emotions, without that abandonment, too many things clutter your mind. And dog gone it's the one thing they know absolutely nothing about, kinda strange don't you think?

[mjbethancourt]

Well I see that Anthony is still Anthony.
How does he have time for a job (or sleep) when he pours so much time and effort into semantical arguing on the internet?

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Anthony, science can explain sound, but science can't explain music, including its sound, at least entirely. There is a question of emotional response. But if you were a musician or a very dedicated audiophile with a lifetime invested in developing a much deeper sens of understanding, you would then agree and know what I'm talking about, which you clearly don't, and I have no inclination in explaining what it took me over 40 years to develop and learn.

Well, Pat, any sound or a series of sounds -- regardless of whether you define it/them as music -- brings/bring some sort of emotional response. This response is either positive or negative. Indifference is also a 'response' (a negative one).

Some interesting facts: The majority of the best orchestras in North America and Europe tune up at different A-levels (the spread is between 338/443). So, artistic interpretation aside -- dynamics, tempo, use of vibrato, etc -- a classic piece performed in New York would sound drastically different than a classic piece performed in Moscow -- if one has the proper training to hear the difference. A few ticks, up or down, can change a lot.

Also, one very important bit that is rarely mentioned when music is discussed, and especially recorded music, is acoustics. Depending on how a specific venue is designed, quality, and your perception of the music that is performed in particular, can be impacted dramatically.

Pro-B

[pentatonic]

Well Pro-B, you kind of defined it. Certain things some might pick up are pretty much what you kind of describe as an "emotional cue". It is those things that are basically indescribable but there for all to hear, but in order to hear them you need to be in a certain mood, for lack of a better word, need a certain approach to your listening.

[Johnny Vinyl]

An objectivist gone crazy!

However, I strongly believe the objectivists have it right in that science MUST be used to guide the art.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

To put it simply, it is like a kids sports game where it ends "fun/fun" because being honest with the score might make the player on the losing team feel like a loser and so we need to pretend everything is equal when it is not.

This is an excellent analogy.

When it comes to kids sports you often have people who care deeply whether this group of six year olds kicked a ball into their own goal more times or fewer times than some other group of six year olds. Those people believe games are played a certain, specific way and for certain, specific reasons and they often have a hard time with the idea that other intelligent, reasonable people might see things differently.

You also have people who don't think final scores are the be all and end all of kids sports. These people are well aware that three goals is more than two goals. They just don't think that matters all that much. Their priorities are different.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If you assume someone can have the same experience in front of a 30" TV in the living room as they can in an HT with proper surround and a 10' wide screen, you are bonkers.

What if one were to assume that somebody could have a good experience in front of 30" TV in the living room? Not the same experience but a good, non-crappy experience nonetheless.

Would you think that person mad as well?

[pentatonic]

Guys, if I may, and Anthony I hope I don't over step the bounds, but in Anthony's defense:

If we assume that Anthony is not only a smart guy (which we know as fact), but also a good engineer? Then, from there to saying that contrary to many of us here, his personal life training is one of logic, not only first, but only logic, emotions have no place in engineering where human lives could be at stake. This I also know as fact, at least among my engineer friends that I made while studying Elect Eng at McGill, (program I didn't finish exactly for this reason, I need emotion in everything I do) in their professional lives, and also very very present in their day to day lives.

Now I will agree that for Anthony, what he believes as important really is important, for the same reasons others are to us.

The only thing I do deplore is intransigence when clearly the other party doesn't have the expertise in certain aspects of a field he/she knows a lot. There might, and I say might, be only 1 entity that has that unique Divine Power.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Guys, if I may, and Anthony I hope I don't over step the bounds, but in Anthony's defense:

If we assume that Anthony is not only a smart guy (which we know as fact), but also a good engineer? Then, from there to saying that contrary to many of us here, his personal life training is one of logic, not only first, but only logic, emotions have no place in engineering where human lives could be at stake. This I also know as fact, at least among my engineer friends that I made while studying Elect Eng at McGill, (program I didn't finish exactly for this reason, I need emotion in everything I do) in their professional lives, and also very very present in their day to day lives.

Now I will agree that for Anthony, what he believes as important really is important, for the same reasons others are to us.

The only thing I do deplore is intransigence when clearly the other party doesn't have the expertise in certain aspects of a field he/she knows a lot. There might, and I say might, be only 1 entity that has that unique Divine Power.

I appreciate your desire to see things from other people's point of view, but I disagree that engineers have no emotion. I am a mechanical engineer myself. I do think very logically and it does frustrate me that many people base their decisions almost entirely on emotion (i.e. I don't care if you feel that national health care is a bad idea because there's decades of data to show that you get much better care for your money as opposed to a private insurance system), but it doesn't mean that I don't have any emotion.

One thing that I notice with many technical people is that they have very strong ideas of right and wrong and are usually very exacting when it comes to any technical aspect of their hobbies. When it comes to movies, for example, I have little tolerance for lazy projectionists who leave the 3D lens in for a 2D show. While I understand why a person would watch a movie on a smartphone, it does frustrate me a bit because I enjoy movies so much that I want to see them shown as well as possible. Why would someone not want to see it shown correctly? That's what my mind is thinking until I have to remind mysel that people don't always think the same way I do.

When it comes to my work, I am in the medical device industry where we work on implantable devices. I try to be as objective and conservative in my approaches as I can because my morals tell me that lives are on the line if my calculations are screwed up and we ship out bad products that can kill someone. I have had meetings where after showing my data demonstrating the need to spend more money on a part for safety reasons, I yelled at people for trying to cut corners to save money on a device that could kill someone if the cheaper part were used.

It's a bit of a contradiction, in a way. I put my emotions aside because I want to be objective and logical to get things right, because my moral code says that I should. The reason why I bother with spending hours calibrating my turntable is because I enjoy music, and I get more of a emotional high if the system is up to par. However, I'm enough of a nerd that I will also spend hours figuring out how everything works, and will argue with people why vinyl sounds better than CD.

I apologize if this is a bit off topic, but I guess the idea that engineers have no emotion struck a nerve with me.

[pentatonic]

I figured someone would read that in what I said, but that is not what I said really, what it means is that the approach that all of my friends who are engineers use is a very practical one usually first, at least when it is in evaluating things, which is what was happening in this thread. Now I could I ever think that guys with whom I played music with, league sports and attended most of my rock concerts in life, have no emotions. You're human, you're stuck with them whether you want to or not.

Again, I guess I should have defined the context first, but thought it was already clear as the debate has been going on now for many months.

So if anyone felt hurt or diminished by this, well first I apologize, but please, put things in the right context.

Edit: I'll specify a bit more, just in case

I can sure relate to Anthony's views, and never said they weren't good or valid as I do consider him a very smart guy and have said so before. They are as valid as anyone's else and knowing where he's coming from, and what you yourself described, it is formed by his personal growth choices in life. Again, it is a noble thing to want everything the best quality possible. The only point is that while it is a valid approach, it doesn't need to be the only approach, and on this, Anthony seems to disagree, at least from his long replies.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I figured someone would read that in what I said, but that is not what I said really, what it means is that the approach that all of my friends who are engineers use is a very practical one usually first, at least when it is in evaluating things, which is what was happening in this thread. Now I could I ever think that guys with whom I played music with, league sports and attended most of my rock concerts in life, have no emotions. You're human, you're stuck with them whether you want to or not.

Again, I guess I should have defined the context first, but thought it was already clear as the debate has been going on now for many months.

So if anyone felt hurt or diminished by this, well first I apologize, but please, put things in the right context.

I don't take any offense. I guess I misinterpreted what you wrote originally. I came across this thread fairly recently.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by singhcr

...I have had meetings where after showing my data demonstrating the need to spend more money on a part for safety reasons, I yelled at people for trying to cut corners to save money on a device that could kill someone if the cheaper part were used.

You aren’t yet jaded by having been beaten into submission by greedy V.P.’s and Presidents (who come and go with regularity once they’ve served their own self-interests).

Sometimes the only thing that succeeds in hitting a chord at the highest levels of upper management is an unscheduled audit by FDA investigators resulting in something like a ‘stop ship’ order.

At least the medical device industry is accountable to some higher authority.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

This is an excellent analogy.

thanks but your take on it is a bit off.

What if one were to assume that somebody could have a good experience in front of 30" TV in the living room? Not the same experience but a good, non-crappy experience nonetheless.

Would you think that person mad as well?

Mad, no. I would be interested in his definition of good (since the word is very vague). It would also be a matter of what experience one is after (if someone is just interested in wasting some time while sitting on a their couch there is definitely nothing wrong with a 30" TV, but if someone wants to experience a movie, it will never happen watching that 30" TV from their couch in the living room)