2. misc-audio
  3. 179129-168343

The thing about objectivists is...

Listening is the essence and central activity of music appreciation. Listening is purely a result of the essential reality of subjectivity, and not that of any "objective reality" which is assumed to exist "out there." The human mind tends to rigidly cling to measurements, pedestrian concepts, and elaborate abstractions in attempt to simplify, subdivide, define, and categorize within the immensity of the realm of the experiential/subjective.

Over-reliance on concrete definitions and ideas serves to attach oneself to a sense of stability and security. The mind secretly hopes this will sufficiently ward off the uneasiness of feeling unsure, or off-balance, about one’s actual degree of comprehension regarding a given topic.

But what is it that is capable of registering sounds, recognition of patterns, recalling memory, and awareness? It’s pure subjectivity. It’s not the brain. That’s only an idea which is based on an entire system of definitions which define other definitions. The mind fortifies the boundaries of its interconnected structure by using circuitously self-reifying definitions.

Consider this: A description of a thing, proposed by the human mind, is only of that which a thing is not. A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

What is it that is present in the pure silence during the instant just prior to sound waves propagating into the air space of the listening room? What is it which listens?

It’s subjective awareness, devoid of mental content. Your ideas aren’t listening, your experiential awareness is listening.

The more one thinks the same boring ideas one’s been thinking for years, the less one can listen. Subjectivity is the self-existent authority prior to the discernment of any quality, measured quantity, or the detection of that which we term "music". The deeper we can relax and sink into pure, silent subjectivity, the more deeply and purely we can listen and behold. Our subjective awareness becomes purer and less colored, our mind becomes more open and flexible, and experiential reality is seen to be the ever-present continuum which is of the greatest value of all.

128x128gladmo
tylermunns
601 posts
 

@nonoise Your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending.

A couple people here at least tried to address the idea.

All you did was issue rude condescension, and then give a vague non-answer.

With a nice slice of (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger): “uhhhh, you really don’t know that? (nerdy-snicker, nerdy snicker) I thought only teenagers that don’t care about the History of Audiophilia didn’t know that! (nerdy-snort, nerdy-snort)”

To use your “description,” (very liberal use of the word ‘description’) if “it (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘it’ is ‘music emanating from speakers’) comes across more realistic, then it will have that rhythm and pace.”  
Well, there you have it!  Not vague at all, and certainly extremely meaningful language when analyzing sound quality!

If something sounds “realistic,” (I’m assuming what you mean by ‘realistic’ is ‘sounds like a live band or sounds as-close-as-possible to the sound on the master tapes) then what more is communicated by saying it has “rhythm and pace?” 

Are you able to give an actual, concrete, useful, description of what constitutes sound quality that exhibits “good rhythm and pace?” Or is it more vague, meaningless audiophile jargon that people wank away with while listening to Dark Side of the Moon and Brothers in Arms?

holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

… (while pushing proverbial audio-nerd glasses up with finger) …

@tylermunns 

Like this ?:

 

clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker
1,582 posts
 

Digital clocks could be superbly accurate, but that is not the issue.  The issue is their implementation as part of the DA conversion process.

The issue with digital is a fundamental one - why convert analogue, the sound we can hear, to digital.  And then back again.  Everyone knows that such conversions have unavoidable costs, such processes always impose costs.  In digital, the main downside is the need to convert a real-time event into a digital clock time-frame, and then back again.

theaudiomaniac
87 posts
 

Because no analog recording format exists that does not have a myriad of far more significant issues but is that relevant to the discussion? Perhaps? Our interpretation of reality is influenced by what we choose to believe and what we chose to believe is often wrong.

holmz's avatar
holmz
2,328 posts
 

The issue with digital is a fundamental one - why convert analogue, the sound we can hear, to digital.  And then back again.  Everyone knows that such conversions have unavoidable costs, such processes always impose costs.  In digital, the main downside is the need to convert a real-time event into a digital clock time-frame, and then back again.

And copies can be sent to servers all over the world and not lose any bits, nor gain any noise.

More to discover