One topic that often comes up is perception vs. measurements.
"If you can't measure it with common, existing measurements it isn't real."
This idea is and always will be flawed. Mind you, maybe what you perceive is not worth $1, but this is not how science works. I'm reminded of how many doctors and scientists fought against modernizing polio interventions, and how only recently did the treatment for stomach ulcers change radically due to the curiosity of a pair of forensic scientists.
Perception precedes measurement. In between perception and measurement is (always) transference to visual data. Lets take an example.
You are working on phone technology shortly after Bell invents the telephone. You hear one type of transducer sounds better than another. Why is that? Well, you have to figure out some way to see it (literally), via a scope, a charting pen, something that tells you in an objective way why they are different, that allows you to set a standard or goal and move towards it.
This person probably did not set out to measure all possible things. Maybe the first thing they decide to measure is distortion, or perhaps frequency response. After visualizing the raw data the scientist then has to decide what the units are, and how to express differences. Lets say it is distortion. In theory, there could have been a lot of different ways to measure distortion. Such as Vrms - Vrms (expected) /Hz. Depending on the engineer's need at the time, that might have been a perfectly valid way to measure the output.
But here's the issue. This may work for this engineer solving this time, and we may even add it to the cannon of common measurements, but we are by no means done.
So, when exactly are we done?? At 1? 2? 5? 30? The answer is we are not. There are several common measurements for speakers for instance which I believe should be done more by reviewers:
- Compression - Intermodulation ( IM ) Distortion - Distortion
and yet, we do not. IM distortion is kind of interesting because I had heard about it before from M&K's literature, but it reappeared for me in the blog of Roger Russel ( http://www.roger-russell.com ) formerly from McIntosh. I can't find the blog post, but apparently they used IM distortion measurements to compare the audibility of woofer changes quite successfully.
Here's a great example of a new measurement being used and attributed to a sonic characteristic. Imagine the before and after. Before using IM, maybe only distortion would have been used. They were of course measuring impedance and frequency response, and simple harmonic distortion, but Roger and his partner could hear something different not expressed in these measurements, so, they invent the use of it here. That invention is, in my mind, actual audio science.
The opposite of science would have been to say "frequency, impedance, and distortion" are the 3 characteristics which are audible, forever. Nelson pass working with the distortion profile, comparing the audible results and saying "this is an important feature" is also science. He's throwing out the normal distortion ratings and creating a whole new set of target behavior based on his experiments. Given the market acceptance of his very expensive products I'd say he's been damn good at this.
What is my point to all of this? Measurements in the consumer literature have become complacent. We've become far too willing to accept the limits of measurements from the 1980's and fail to develop new standard ways of testing. As a result of this we have devolved into camps who say that 1980's measures are all we need, those who eschew measurements and very little being done to show us new ways of looking at complex behaviors. Some areas where I believe measurements should be improved:
The effects of vibration on ss equipment
Capacitor technology
Interaction of linear amps with cables and speaker impedance.
We have become far too happy with this stale condition, and, for the consumers, science is dead.
You are applying the "audio complexity fallacy". You are taking the very high complexity of a 3d, time variant sound field coupled with the high complexity of human hearing and human preference and applying that to simple things in the audio chain.
Thanks for your interesting point...
I am not sure if I understand it clearly...
My point is I am interested in all design improvement with measurement for sure...
But the main point in Audiophile experience (not in engineering " per se" ) is to controls embeddings, with whatever electronic component...But I wish for the best electronic component there is to begins with, and for that measurement are important to define norm...
Using "audio complexities" to make void any measurement theory is not my point at all...Only fool are against improved engineering. But the main point for all users after making some buying choice, reading design goals and measurements, is to embed finally in the optimal way this electronic component....This fourthly complex embeddings is not reducible to measurement... Is this the " audio complex fallacy" ?
Here I take science to mean science in the public realm, as opposed to academic or manufacturer’s research. Because science involves progress and invention, so long as the educated public is stuck with a handful of metrics set in stone by the 1980’s that we discuss, I say that this science is dead. It has not progressed much at all. It had a fruitful life from the invention of the telephone up until the 1980’s and then died quietly.
I think the general consensus here is (& @erik_squires certainly makes the case): we measure irrelevant things.
Oh, no, not saying that. I’m saying what we measure is not enough, but we take it to mean all that is knowable. Imagine measuring the earth by it’s diameter and mass and saying that’s all we must know about it, and that tells us everything we need to know about the earth. Well, if your sole interest is gravitational, momentum and orbit, then yes, I supposed that’s true, but these two metrics ignore:
Geology
Geography
The composition of the ecosphere including liquids, gasses and plant and animals.
Tectonic activity
Weather
Biology and evolution
I’m not saying the earth’s diameter and mass are irrelevant, far from it, but I do think we are stuck somewhere far from knowing everything about say, capacitors or amplifier/speaker interaction. We just accept that publishers publish mass and diameter and that science is done and then must leave the rest to popular opinion, social media and taste makers.
It seems that your brain work well indeed.... It will be difficult to improve your words argument.... I like the question you ask in this thread even if i cannot answer it myself....Measurement is a time improving historical process for sure.... Thanks and happy Easter....
Very interesting and thought provoking thread thus far. I believe I’m highly capable of stopping this intellectual, educational and inspirational audio forum brainstorming session juggernaut dead in its tracks with my highly suspect thread contributions. If you all refrain from doubting my capacity to do this, I guess I can refrain from intentionally deploying my vast capacities to train wreck this excellence. I agree with the premise that past and current objective speaker standard measurements poorly correlate with the subjective individual perceptions of the sound qualities of specific speakers. At best these standard measurements, such as impedance and efficiency rating, are most useful in determining the viable amps to drive them with. Perhaps speaker type is the best current indicator of subjective sound qualities perceived. From my perspective, the biggest hindrance to creating a high quality and enjoyable home audio system is the complexity involved due to the high number of components, the high number of available options for each system component and the variability of how well specific system component parts perform with other specific system component parts. This results in an extremely high number of possible unique system combinations or permutations that requires knowledge and experience to simplify. Personally, it took me decades of knowledge building, experimenting and accumulated experience to assemble a high quality audio system that I deeply enjoyed. Slow learner you say? Perhaps, but I think it may seem like an especially daunting venture, or more appropriately an adventure, to assemble an enjoyable audio system to the newcomers to our hobby. I believe improved objective measurements of audio gear, that incorporate the knowledge gained from the field of psycho-acoustics, and are somehow more closely correlated with subjective listening would likely be difficult but also very useful.
the high number of available options for each system component and the variability of how well specific system component parts perform with other specific system component parts.
This is very important for sure....
But after you have linked compatible components, the most important factors are their embeddings in 4 dimensions: mechanical resonance-vibrations grid, electrical grid of the house not only of the system or of the room, the passive treatment of the acoustical space, and after that an active treatment of the acoustical space....
Measuring is an active temporal evolutive process, be it at his best for speakers for example, it cannot replace the 4 embeddings to guarantee a good S.Q. ….My opinion is we need feed-back measuring process not only in a designer shop but also in our room with our particular embeddings methods and particular electronic components...With the progress of science this is already there, if not this will be possible tomorrow...
This whole thing really ought to have been settled long ago. The whole measurement thing is the province of Julian Hirsch and Stereo Review. If they measure the same they are the same. The whole listening thing goes back to J. Gordon Holt and Stereophile. The listener is the final arbiter of performance.
In the marketplace of ideas, as in the literal marketplace, Hirsch and Stereo Review are dead. Gone. And good riddance.
Their spirit lives on, like some malevolent poltergeist, wasting the time of audiophiles the world around.
Science isn’t dead. Merely inadequate. Understand the difference.
Measuring process, and listening experience in a controlled environment, are not opposites things... They are complementary...
Except for some who are allergic to good engineering design research, or for those who want to reduce anything to what they call " science" which is only bad "scientism"... I am with the people who want to correlate, and improve ears and design....This correlation between the ears and the measure process is and will be without end to an unlimited improvement...
I’m saying what we measure is not enough, but we take it to mean all that is knowable.
I agree with that. I should have been clearer in my post. The fact that the data we are offered is insufficient to correlate to the listening experience, fuels the belief "if it sounds good it’s good". As a broad, blanket statement it is incorrect IMO; If however, we say "if I like the way it sounds, it is good for me", i.e. a subjective value statement, it is totally acceptable.
However, if by "good" we mean accurate reproduction of source material, then "what sounds good (to me)" may or may not be good technically speaking!
Measuring process, and listening experience in a controlled environment, are not opposites things... They are complementary...
I agree.
There are still things that are difficult to grasp such as cable breaking-in, an in which case, people are demanding "measurement". The problem is the equipment required to measure the "breakin-in" phenomenon can be quite expensive that very few cable companies can afford.
doesn’t occur in any meaningful way and hence cannot be measured.
Actually, when it comes to speaker drivers (such as woofer, tweeter ....), it has been shown that break-in does change Thiele-Small parameters.
As for breaking in cables, it may require more sophisticated and expensive equipment to measure. Not only that, it’s probably not trivial to measure so it does take some knowledge. These two reasons are probably why you don’t see any publish data.
OK, someone was really determined to measure break in, you know instead of just talking about it, how would one actually go about it? Gentle readers, I implore you, how would you measure depth or height of soundstage, transparency, separation of instruments, perceived resolution, bass articulation, naturalness of high frequencies, air, presence, and warmth? Hel-loo! Is there a soundstage meter? Is there a glare meter? Cut me some slack, Jack.
Heaudio123, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble but the soundstage physical dimensions of depth, width and height are provided on the recording generally speaking, some recordings better than others and some systems better than others. The reason all three physical dimensions are embedded in the recording is due to the reverberant decay, first and second reflections, echos, etc., you know, just like almost any physical space. It’s a misunderstanding of the facts to say the sound is a result of two sources since even one microphone is capable of capturing all three physical dimensions. Didn’t you know that?
Gentle readers, I implore you, how would you measure depth or height of soundstage, transparency, separation of instruments, perceived resolution, bass articulation, naturalness of high frequencies, air, presence, and warmth?
You dont measure these things because they arent real. Its all an illusion. What you measure is the frequency response. The more even it gets the better the illusion.
OK, someone was really determined to measure break in, you know instead
of just talking about it, how would one actually go about it?
Truthfully, we would need to invent a metric, just like I was discussing at the beginning of the thread.
How would I do it? Based on what I've heard from capacitor break-in, I would go down at least the following routes:
1. Look for phase shift and fine comb filtering effects at small and large signal levels
2. You would measure music play back before and after then look for anomalies in phase and amplitude.
3. Look for signal compression at small and large amplitudes.
Both of these approaches would measure before and after break-in has allegedly occurred. Then work backwards from what we find into some easy to use tests.
I don’t get it. Why would you assume phase or compression changes?
When you don’t know what you will find you cast a large net. I’m not assuming, I’m saying this is a starting direction based on my observations. We were asked to show examples of how we would investigate issues currently not measured. This was one example.
When you don’t know what you will find, you don’t know ahead of time how to measure it. You pick a possible explanation, then go prove/disprove it.
Otherwise we are logically stuck back where we started from, arguing metrics and measurements that are old enough to have grandchildren.
The point is to measure some quantifiable objective - before and after. As for equipment, I would need: 1. A really good analog oscilloscope that can measure jitter in time domain.
2. A really good phase noise analyzer to measure in frequency domain
3. A really good vector network analyzer to measure the freq. and phase response. The excitation signal can be varied in amplitude if you want to see how the cable response with different input amplitude.
These would measure the before and after and then comparing the result. Here is a link from Troels, in which he modified a small woofer freq. response and listen for the affect on soundstage and detail. http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/W12CY003.htm
I suspect the pre-break-in measurement will be relatively "peaky" vs. the after break-in.
But at the end, as I said above, one still has to listen.
Gentle readers, I implore you, how would you measure depth or height of soundstage, transparency, separation of instruments, perceived resolution, bass articulation, naturalness of high frequencies, air, presence, and warmth? Hel-loo! Is there a soundstage meter? Is there a glare meter?
The point is not to measure those that are viewed as too subjective. The point is to measure quantifiable objective parameters.
First you need a very low noise signal generator with jitter in the femto second range.
Here are some basic measurements one can take:
1. Sinewave sweep from 10Hz to 50KHz measure jitter in time domain at each freq. increment with an oscilloscope. 2. Square wave sweep from 10KHz to 50KHz then measure jitter in time domain at each freq. increment with an oscilloscope. 3. Measure phase noise jitter from 1KHz to 20KHz at 1KHz increment.
This measurement is done in frequency domain so you can look for any peak or dip in the frequency so you can compare before and after break-in.
4. With a network analyzer, measure the freq. and phase response. The network analzyer will do a sweep so you don’t have to do that manually as in step 1, 2,3.
The best way to tune a speaker is by ear. If it cannot be heard theres no point in measuring it. Instruments made hundreds of years ago without measuring equipment are still used today by musicians. If it could be done by ear then, it can be done by ear now.
You are applying the "audio complexity fallacy". You are taking the very high complexity of a 3d, time variant sound field coupled with the high complexity of human hearing and human preference and applying that to simple things in the audio chain.
You judge too swiftly, I only said that the ultimate judge is the ears.... The eye must read the results of measurements and the ears must decide and work to correlate his experience with numbers and curves to improve measures in a increased ongoing experiments.... I want some audiophile engineers measure more and more and always better.... Who is the fool who dont want that?
Perhaps you suffer of the "Engineer fallacy" saying that numbers and curves are all that exist ? This reduce simply to the maps and territory fallacy or confusion...
« Behind the cloud of numbers are ideas» Husserl
I am sure that you dont like philosopher then I will make a citation by a great statistician:
« The numbers are where the scientific discussion should start, not end » Steven Goodman
Steven N. Goodman is an American Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology) at Stanford School of Medicine.[1] He has extensively contributed to statistics and probability analysis within the biosciences, and in 1999 he coined the term "p-value fallacy".[2]
I can assure you that the " p-fallacy" in statistics is more interesting to read about than your homemade " audio complexity fallacy" that is only a game for audiophile thread forums ...
Concocted "fallacy" and real one are not the same....You have now a real one to ponder about....
I dont understand your point.... the ears-brain create the sound in some particular room...This is truism evident for all...
«A computer can detect tones that are 1/1000 of an octave apart with ease, even 10 times that. The ear/brain, not even close.»
This is a fallacy....
Using a measured number precision in one dimension parameter against the many parameters complexities of the ears-brain, and saying that the ears is less able to resolve information linked to sound...
But that simple signal in the audio chain before it becomes sound .... it is simple, and to assign the complexity of "sound" and "human hearing", and "human interpretation" to a simple electrical signal .... well that is the "audio complexity fallacy", and it is a fallacious argument that has 0 merit.
The simple signal in the audio chain does not become magically a sound, it is the ears-brain that create the sound in a particular room...And i never attributed myself the complexities of the ears-brain to a simple electrical signal...
It is precisely my point, that it is not possible to attribute the complexities of the ears-brain to the electrical signal....A musical sound is create by the ears-brain, in a particular acoustical field, from a particular electrical grid, in a controlled mechanical resonant-vibrating audio system....
Measures systematically implemented are necessary to improve engineered Electrical component....This is good.... But if the engineer is not an audiophile also, who want to buy his design?
A computer can do it 100 times better. A computer can detect tones that are 1/1000 of an octave apart with ease, even 10 times that. The ear/brain, not even close.
We dont need to improve our speakers beyond what humans can hear.
The brain can detect angle to about 1-2 degrees. A computer can do it 100 times better. A computer can detect tones that are 1/1000 of an octave apart with ease, even 10 times that. The ear/brain, not even close.
That is missing the point. Sure objectively the computer can do quite many things better and faster than a human mind, but no computer that I know of can interpret musical reproduction the way the ear-brain can.
What you said is the equivalent of saying a computer is "smarter" than a human because it can perform mathematical operations such as addition, subtraction ... millions of times faster than a human brain.
A computer can perform addition much faster than any person on earth but that does not mean the computer is smarter or even better.
A computer can perform addition much faster than any person on earth but that does not mean the computer is smarter or even better.
You are right and even in actual A.I. the clever new algorithm( that beat any human in any finite game) can only reconstruct a totality with external parts.... This is an external connection to the whole....Even a quantum computer linked to a modern classical computer would not be able to be connected to the Life evolution source like we are and all humans through the Billions of cellular life in us....The soul is this connection with life that makes any life the whole....Without any calculus... The link is internal without distance …. With the calculus of the Turing Machine linked to a quantum computer the link will be whatsoever external....Out also of the universal memory field of life...
Like say Roger Penrose : " consciousness is not computable"
The engineering transhumanism is a myth of a less evolved nature than the myths of the past, because myths of the past were first step to evolution of the spirit and always are.... Transhumanism myth is the abolition of the spiritual freedom, by childish fear and faustian refusal of death, reducing the internal living link of all life to an external dead one... A technocratic totalitarian inferno...
heaudio123 What matters is that all those smarts of the brain and their ability to pull information out of a sound (and visual ) field is completely meaningless wrt defining what happens with an electrical signal. So called audiophiles without any real technical knowledge repeatedly try to use this false argument that the complexities of sound field interpretation somehow translate to equal complexities AND variables for electrical signal transmission and use that logical fallacy for their justification of all kinds of never measured, never characterized and certainly never validated effects and characteristics in electrical signal recording, transmission and playback.
>>>>At least it’s the ones without any technical knowledge who try to use that phoney baloney argument. Are you sure you’re not Ethan Winer? For real?
So called audiophiles without any real technical knowledge repeatedly try to use this false argument that the complexities of sound field interpretation somehow translate to equal complexities AND variables for electrical signal transmission and use that logical fallacy for their justification of all kinds of never measured, never characterized and certainly never validated effects and characteristics in electrical signal recording, transmission and playback.
It is not an argument that the electrical audio signal is conveyed trough an electrical grid of a particular house, in the mechanical resonant constraints of a particular audio system, through a very specific acoustical field in a particular room to be recreated by the ears-brain in some individual qualitative experience, irreducible to our actual measuring process...It is a simple fact....But I think that the improved measuring process can improve this experience yes....
And you contest a great physician mathematician about something you dont understand it seems...And accuse us "idiot" audiophiles ... :)
I smile because engineering for you is a bit distant of mathematics ( those of Penrose are not kitchen mathematics of 19 century) and philosophy it seems...Engineering is not only science , it is based on science, it is an art like medecine… There exist engineers that are also "idiot" audiophiles themselves and they work to create great audio....They dont buy the " fallacy" you speak about because all engineers are not scientist ideologue....They create for the human ears-brain, for the idiot audiophile to buy their products...
I know what your work or hobby is for sure: it is measuring.... Nothing against that at all... It is very good and necessary thing to do for improving Audio for sure.... But remember: «for a hammer all is nails»
Ha ha ha, "science is dead", what a joke! Science can show you the transfer function between the source and the end result in the air at your place! Sure it can't measure your tastes and the way your ears translate the air movement to your brain! All we want to achieve is, within many constraints, the nearest end reproduction of the original sound taken from the source instruments / voice.
So don't bother with science, it's doing very well and isn't going anywhere!
Sure it can’t measure your tastes and the way your ears translate the air movement to your brain!
Very good point... We understand each other a little more...
It is just that there exist many other points that cannot be measured or that are not measured at this moment by scientist now in audio experience...One by one these points can be explained, many of them.... But when an audiophile create his room he plays with some basic science, and also with other factors to improve the sound...These factors are not always only the regular one studied by engineers that’s all... They exist.... I play with them with great success....My very real " illusion" of sound comes from them not only from good design electronic components....
If someone negate science I will not complaint if you call him an idiot, but negating some experience not directly linked to usual engineer experiment and calling audiophiles idiot is not good diplomacy....
By the way I am sure the OP was not speaking of the death of science " per se" but the narrow vision of some in audio science....Is it not clear? Or do you feel better in classifying anybody that is not engineer in idiot crowds?
If you are intentionally modifying the signal that is not engineering that is art, in which case don’t make up characteristics for equipment that are simply not true, not validated, not verified, and reproducible and disappear
Thanks, your answer about spirituality is fair enough...
But when I say that engineering is also " art" I dont say that in the sense of your wording in this extract of your post...I dont say that as if I was speaking about taste or fancy....Or illusion....
Some of the tweaks I use modify the sound in a reproducible way and can give new ideas to an engineer...Some ideas I replicate came even from some engineers... Engineering is not only about measuring, it is also innovating, design is not reducible only to numbers and measure....And dont confuse measuring with reproducible....validation by other human beings also count even if not measurable at the moment....And dont call "not true" what is not measured nor measurable at some point in time but validated tough by many human ears...Do you get my point?
If not, you reduce yourself to less than what you are....
If you are faithfully recreating the signal that is engineering and science. If you are intentionally modifying the signal that is not engineering that is art,
By the way, the frontier between art and science is absolutely not clear cut like you pre supposed it to be....Luckily, because creativity is linked to break artificial frontiers, artificial methods, habits, and false rigid distinction that has no link to a living complex reality in biology and in physical reality also....Art is not synonym for illusion and science synonym of reality....This is for common sense and for philosophy absurdly simplistic view...
If one takes the non-spiritual view then there is nothing about the human brain that cannot be replicated.
That is not true. Can you replicate Beethoven or Einstein? If you’re right, then we probably have a bunch of Einstein running around already. That is such a simple-minded point of view that I have to scratch my head.
Again, you seem to be confused between things that can objectively replicated vs. things that belong to the conscious mind that cannot be replicated.
If you are faithfully recreating the signal that is engineering and science.
That is not possible even with the current equipment. You can come close but nothing in this world that can replicate the original performance 100%. I mean you can come close but not 100%. Currently you got 24bit/192KHz, SACD, DSD and so on but they all have their own compromises.
You seem to be putting yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of :-)
Only, only, if the validation by humans is reproducible under controlled conditions, otherwise it is just conjecture.
Ok take a piece of shungite around 500 grams, put it on the electrical central panel of your house, or anywhere in the audio system, the sound will change...For the worse or for the better.... The important thing is not fine tuning the effect for the time being, but only to induce an objective effect that is not measured …. This effect will be audible worsening or improving the sound by anyone putting it in his system and listening to a files that he knows already well.... After that observation of change, we will discuss how to improve this change and transform it in a definitive positive improvement in all case with any sound system? is it not simple?
By the way accusing all vendors a priori to be crooks is not only not fair diplomacy, it is plainly false on common sense ground judgment...
My self I replicate or create homemade all my tweaks... I dont buy any material that cost more than peanuts... The more costly electronic component I modified for my needs cost me 10 bucks...
There is no relation whatsoever between the audio system I owns now for years, and the same electronic components rightly embedded in the vibrational-resonant mechanical dimension, in my electrical grid, and in the acoustical fiel of my room.... Total transformation of the same speakers-dac-amplifiers....same electronics components but they produce a sound now at his real potential S.Q..... And you will said to me that is an illusion? I will smile for sure....
Try my experiment if you are serious about audio more than about dogmas... Is it too complicated to verify an audible change when putting a rock on an electronic component or on the electrical main box of your house ?
When you understand AI learning and architecture you realize in many ways that aspects are much like evolution and happening in real time. And yes, more creative that Beethoven and an even farther reaching mind than Einstein.
Remind me of 1980’s science fiction flicks :-) Watching too much of those can get you in trouble.
Fyi, 24/192 has 0 compromises within the limits of human hearing.
There is so much limitations even with today digital technology but talking about it would require talking about digital engineer that you may not be familiar with.
When you understand AI learning and architecture you realize in many ways that aspects are much like evolution and happening in real time. And yes, more creative that Beethoven and an even farther reaching mind than Einstein.
You are right on only one aspect:
This apparent superiority is an illusion....The map is not reality, never mind the sophistication of the map...
"Far reaching mind" ? Goethe cannot be replicate, nor Bach, they are living organism that speak to other living organism.... A machine will speak numbers in so much complicated strings to another machine , no human mind can understand them not even their creators... But it is not something that have to be understood, it is a closed code between two machine or more and synchronizing them....
A machine will live in a sea of numbers without being able ever to see numbers from the outside and creating concepts about numbers....( this is an important point about what is really a concept) Sorry it is elementary mathematics for the mathematical mind...Read Godel, Cantor, Ramanujan, Grothendieck, even Archimedes will do... One of the greatest genius to ever lived is Archimedes, and do you know what is his central idea? the concept of the infinite....(Reviel Nietz is specialist of Archimedes).
No machine will ever invent a concept? It is simple to know why.... To invent a concept you must live grounded internally in a universe, and you must at the same time see it from the outside.... I will not explain it here but this fact is the basic of linguistic and not only of mathematics...Read Ernst Cassirer, a philosopher and a scientist friend of Einstein, that discuss relativity with him, that know enough quantum mechanics to discuss with Bohr... Not an audiophile...:)
Life is among other things a universal connected cellular "active" infinite memory, and A.I. artificial memory, so powerful it will be, is nothing to compared with....By the way my ideas comes mostly from mathematics, but more sophistical ideas than just algorithmic theory for engineer...The mathematics linked to this universal memory of life are so new they are created 8 years ago by a Mathematician from Japan (Shinichi Mochizuki under the title Inter-universal geometry or arithmetic deformation theory)... Enjoy the read....And dont think audiophile are all stupid....I dont think that all engineers are stupid....
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
