|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Are real scientists suspicious or curious posted by clarkjohnsen on September 1, 1999 at 22:46:54:
Hi Clark,I hate doing "line-by-line" responses to posts, but your's raises too many issues to do otherwise. Sorry.
>(Am I wrong?)
That's a tough one because of the number of issues raised.
>Personally I see audio as a vast undiscovered territory. The final frontier of basic science. A place where weird hypotheses may still be investigated.
In audio there are both vast discovered territories and vast undiscovered territories. It is NOT however the "final frontier of basic science." I hope that was either a "troll", or a mis-statement. It gives far too much credit to our "scientific" understanding of our world. And your statement that audio is "A place where weird hypotheses may still be investigated" tells me that you don't really think that way.
I agree with what I think you intended to say. We still have too much to learn about things like human perception to believe that we already have all the answers about things audio. (Am I wrong?)
In reality, we already know too much about audio for the lens-heads like me. We have spent huge sums of reasearch $$$ to develop products and procedures for the "average consumer." We know all about "average audio and the average consumer", because we've spent years and $$$ sorting it all out. Along the way the audiophile got lost or their mission changed. Simple as that.
>Those who would deny the listening experience, are either out to lunch, or being taken to dinner by the money interest.
I hope you don't mean that "Those whould deny" your "listening experience, are either out to lunch, or being taken to dinner by the money interest." We all have more information coming into our ears than ever reaches our consiousness. We find order in the chaos by learning what to ignore. When we become "audiophiles", we sometimes "unlearn" to ignore things that others don't notice. None of us were born knowing the difference between tubes and transistors, any more than we were born able to tell a mans voice from a womans. We learn these things. We learn to hear, and we all do so in (perhaps slightly) different ways. The "fool" is the one who criticizes another for what he has not yet learned. The "he" in the previous sentence is abmiguous by intent.
>Simple as that.
And as complex.
Part of the problem is that we all think that others know what we mean when we say "audio", but that is a faulty assumption. "Perfectionist audio" is an unexplored arena. "Consumer audio" isn't. Examples abound. "Sloppy" wording leads to sloppy arguments and probably sloppy thinking. You need look no further than my own posts for enough examples to prove the point.
So Clark, the bottom-line is that yup, I agree, with clearification but little reservation.
Be excellent,
Charles
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Are real scientists suspicious or curious - Charles 15:33:25 09/02/99 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
