"Is anyone able to clearly articulate the relevance of the trees in the forest bit."
Yes, it is the substitution of one inane discussion with another. In both cases the blind are leading the blind.
Fact: Sound is a physical phenomenon in which there is a disturbance caused by collisions of molecules creating the propagation of alternating compressions and rarifactions. In air or in water (as in sonar) this is a branch of mechanical engineering known as fluid dynamics. Sound can exist in solids as well and is transmitted in some solids very efficiently. They say if you put your ear to a railroad rail you can hear a train 100 miles away. Sound is not the biological reaction to these waves, it is the waves themselves. If it weren't so, the term ultra sound would have no meaning because it is literally sound at a frequency too high to be heard. Hearing is one physiological consequence of sound within certain frequency and amplitude ranges. It is characteristic of higher animals. Both higher and lower animals and possibly plants have other reactions besides hearing to such vibrations if they are sensitive to them.
I wanted to go down this path just a bit earlier, thought I'd wait and see if others spotted this before I said it.
Just how is it, the proponents of this ridiculous debate, the subjectivists or a subgroup, manage to hold these contradictory constructs in the mind? And further, make them fit together do it makes some sort of sense?
The mind is a powerful thing, love it with all it's failings.
A fascinating area.
Which audiophiles would be more likely to purchase a super tweeter? Dunno if that is the right term, you know the ones, ruler straight response from 50 to 200 k or whatever the blurb is. Heck, IIRC some don't even need to be wired in circuit (??)
A complete reversal of this twaddle, 'if there is a signal we cannot hear yet someone is there, yes we perceive it'. Heck, maybe not a reversal as I have no idea what any of them is trying to say! Man, just hang a few mingpo discs around the room, she'll be right mate. The list is endless
Maybe it is as simple as 'the ear is such an exquisite measuring instrument, the most powerful in the universe (has to be the universe right?) that if not present can stop big trees from making a sound when they fall'. 'They can even perceive the unperceivable!' (same sort of set up as the trees in the forest, just throw an oxymoron into the equation and watch it get debated over the centuries. You know, sound of one hand clapping and all that claptrap)
Move over Superman.
"Re the 'can a system reproduce live' or a good enough facsimile. Ok, I accept that if your goal is 'it has to be TRUE to it maaan!' then it is a losing proposition."
Wrong. It can be done but not by technologies in use today. They are far too primitive because they are based on a grossly inadequate understanding of sound and hearing. Far more advanced systems are required whose design and construction shows much greater insight into both phenomena. Repeating the same mistakes ad infinitum ad nauseum will not solve the problem. It merely reveals the intellectual incompetence and inadequacy of those who produce them and claim either overtly or by implication that they do.
Cool. A bit like time travel you mean? You know, we cannot do it today with our primitive technology and limited understanding of the fabric of the universe, but it can be done. Sumthin along those lines?
Excellent, share the evidence of that with us. this alternate technology of which you speak and the latest, better, understanding upon which it is based.
They'll be at RMAF this year?
Personally, I'd rather they switch to time travel meself, I get so damned annoyed that the brightest and greatest of human minds and endeavour is constantly fritted away in such a trivial pursuit as audio. Forget the LHC, all the breaktrhoughs in physics keep coming from audio.
"(does that have to be the goal btw?)"
If you love the sound of real music as opposed to a pale facsimile of it and that is what you want to hear then yes.
You can often tell more from what the person deliberately does not address, rather than what they cherry pick. Forget for a second how you managed to pollute the thought with your own baggage, I'm also picking up a tinge of musical superiority here, going out on a limb, the only valid music is I dunno, what's the term, 'live unamplified' or somesuch? Climbing out just a tad more, classical??
Enjoy yourself next time you are seated next to a person who sniffs and snuffles every ten seconds, and you're in a bad seat, and the orchestra or soloist is off that night.
So what of the construct I gave you? Where it is entirely conceivable that what you hear on a stereo can greatly exceed what you might find in a live performance? Prob does not count as music.
