When you have a spare weekend, 64 pages on the shortcomings of ASR.
https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/audio-science-review-review.9827/
I don't want to beat a dead horse but I'm bugged.
I just can't clear my head of this. I don't want to start a measurements vs listening war and I'd appreciate it if you guys don't, but I bought a Rogue Sphinx V3 as some of you may remember and have been enjoying it quite a bit. So, I head over to AVS and read Amir's review and he just rips it apart. But that's OK, measurements are measurements, that is not what bugs me. I learned in the early 70s that distortion numbers, etc, may not be that important to me. Then I read that he didn't even bother listening to the darn thing. That is what really bugs me. If something measures so poorly, wouldn't you want to correlate the measurements with what you hear? Do people still buy gear on measurements alone? I learned that can be a big mistake. I just don't get it, never have. Can anybody provide some insight to why some people are stuck on audio measurements? Help me package that so I can at least understand what they are thinking without dismissing them completely as a bunch of mislead sheep.
- ...
- 368 posts total
@mahgister - in fact, mahgister, I get a lot from your posts, especially if they’re nothing to do with music and listening! Which is not the case in this post, because your posts have every single thing to do with the issues being debated, even if they seem more laid to rest with atmasphere's last post in this thread, regarding his belief in the current somewhat conclusive state of acoustic measurements. I believe what you were trying to draw everyone’s attention to has to do with the absolutely subtle mystery of the things in life we think we have figured out. The world of numbers is simply as exacting as it should get, and yet…. It often seems to me, the deeper I get into the understanding of something, and the clearer it gets, the more nuance I begin to become aware of, together with the awareness of how little I actually know, pushing me to attempt fresh understanding in different ways. But there is something i do know - a link you will like very much… ; ) It eloquently speaks about the wonderfully nuanced and unbelievable world of unknowing the way we know it : )
In friendship - kevin |
Thanks it feel good to be understood... Yes this problem, the Collatz conjecture, is so simple, the simple to state there is but with no proof... But Paul Erdos once said "Mathematics is not yet ready for such problems".
Mathematical meditation disconnect us from what we think we know... We know what we need to know for living and walking and eating... But what we need to know is loosing our "knowing" to be able to know anew... We dont know what is sound, hearing, and music .... Consciousness is music say Anirban Bandyopadhyay ... Time itself is music say Alain Connes... Our outer ear double spiral is the staircase to heaven... Our ear ’s spiralling cochlea is the door to heaven.... Prime distribution and musical scale are spiralling non commutative phenomemon like time is at his roots... I bought an interesting book years ago the title was " What is a spiral"? A so complex object defined in all mathematics in different perspectives, so much so, that the border between what is a spiral and what is not is escaping us...
|
@jjss49- +ONE!
MAKE 1984 FICTION AGAIN |
Maybe the problem is not a math problem and that is the difficulty. Maybe it is as simple as realizing that because you are applying a decision based algorithm, something math is poor at representing, that a "solution" simply does not exist in the realm of mathematics. The starting numbers are not "numbers" but representations or placeholders for the set of numbers that will result from applying the algorithm. Every time you make a decision on even/odd, you are throwing away information. That knowledge does not carry to the next step, therefore you can never go backwards, only forwards. |
- 368 posts total