2. misc-audio
  3. 152899-117374

Has to be said

Hi,
i been reading most sites and the little arguments about this and that about making audio in this case be more pleasent ot better to any individual. and have to say upfront that if "you" believe its better to you than it is in fact true to you and you only. we are just reletive respondants to each other and therefore nature and the universe.
many of the subjects that come up as to improving ones audio system tend to go into little details that may or may not have "real" affects on most of us. and also be provable with phsics,math,medical studies etc.many musicians and many humans can distinguish alot of these aspects. and they are ALL quantifiable and measureable very easilly. from 1800 till today FFT and resonance,sound perfiliration has been well adjustable from the totally acoustic pipe organs to the music halls 100s of years ago with out electronic fixes, and all these new snake oil gagets on the market. many are always big commenters here on this site.
Its totally true you can "fix" and sound wave with free rocks,walls,chambers, etc. so go for it at a cost of zero dollars. and adbandon all these marketing hacks.
Ive been well into sound,RF,Radioation, Electron manulipation, Audio,phsics etc all my life and all my relatives aslso . I dont need to justify my opinions yet am dignified by holding 8 international patents,2 doctrets and my dad with similar fields.
one crazy obvious thing no one even bothers to mention is the way off standard of 440hz shifted 8hz the earths standard resonance. while all the 1000s of years 432hz was based on real natural happenings before electronics. dont you all care everything you listen to is 8hz off tune and therefore wrong, but you will bicker about a few microvolts noise from an ocslittating wire with parallell wire  hanging off a standoff. itf too funny to me.
yes all digital except one source tunes their DAC math to 435hz to be more correct to Verdi and other great composers.
ive got tuning forks over the audio and above spectrum and tune my panios violins etc to them 432 hz
and need to say again. yes please do everything Analoge
to correct your sound system, its been done in churches,music halls,the great pyrmids, with instruments themselves.
but do not chase the rabbit down the money hole to fix apparent physhoacoustics in your listening area.

ps the spelling and writing is horrid cause ive got a brain injury2 years ago and under go EEG,ehthesographs and neuro studies constantly. where various frequency sweeps are put thru me and studied by the medical and commercial fields.
Im off for now to play my bass thru 50000watts total. and resonate the neighborhood at 8.2 HZ....

128x128hemigreg
clearthink
1,421 posts
 

atdavid7"There is a big difference between "offering up a theory", and offering up something approaching a viable theory. When that "theory" has holes so big"

The problem is that when presented with a theory your usual and customary practice is to apply a fact or two derived from Wikipedia and then use that to dismiss, dispel, or "disprove" the concept that you cannot grasp, comprehend, or that conflicts with your belief system which is, again, based on Wikipedia it is all part of you're compelling need to be seen as authoritative, expert, and intellectual.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,051 posts
 
rodman99999
... In terms of simple logic the situation goes like this- the person who hears a difference is under no obligation to prove or substantiate it with physical theory. That’s one. And two would be, if they do go on to earn bonus points by offering up a proposed physical theory (as GK has done) its sufficient to show that it COULD possibly be an explanation.
Agreed, and I’ve been saying basically the same thing here for years. But there will always be a few of the naysayers who demand otherwise, as atdavid does so predictably, sometimes dismissing suggestions with just a wave of the hand and a Wikipedia quote.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
atdavid keeps saying the theory has big holes in it but never says what they are. Very sneaky. A clever trick oft employed by Cargo Cultists and pseudo scientists. We’ve heard it all before - It disobeys the laws of science. It’s marketing. It doesn’t prove anything. It has big holes in it. Yada yada yada. Then he will find fault with some triviality or irrelevancy and try to claim victory. It’s so transparent. It’s always everyone else who’s illogical. Standard tactics of the professional debunker. You can’t debunk something that’s not bunk. Hel-loo!

Juror #3 - You can’t prove it! 😡
andy2
1,555 posts
 
atdavid can write for sure.  Either he has a lot of time or someone else writing for him or he just copied and pasted.  I think I'll learn that when I finally retire.  

So what's the definition of infinity?  It's called "atdavid" lols.  
rodman99999
6,206 posts
 
@cleeds- Thanks, but- I was quoting and agreeing with millercarbon, who had expounded on, what I’ve always promoted on these threads(ie: experimentation).      Also(far as atdavid’s weak, "viablility" objection); one could probably, "drive a Kenworth through" the theory that we’re all occupying a hologram, made up of strung together bits of information.    Yet; there are very learned/reputable Physicists, that are currently trying to prove just that.           NO theory has ever proven anything.    Theories are always propositions, put forth to try and explain observed phenomena, and can only be PROVEN through experimentation.
More to discover