[Review] Getting animated

Yes, hes very good at it.

This sounds very familiar......the day after petes been I run it up and usually think b*****y h*ll!

 

you don't really think that audiophiles have some sort of ''golden ears'' that aren't owned by the general public do you?

 

Not "golden ears" as you put it......but it is now for me a different form of listening experience.

ie soundstage........placement of vocalists, focusing of instruments, definition etc.

whether everybody is interested in this is another matter. Some will not be interested ("that sounds nice")/some will be interested/ some will be fascinated.....

..again...horses for courses.

Thats what I meant.

FYI I cartainly don't have golden ears.....Pete does.......not me....

I just have a lot of fun experimenting witht the laws of physics making such improvements as I can with basic materails

 

Scientific Method?
See effect; repeat effect; formulate theory to explain effect.

Non-Scientific Method?
Deny effect occurs; assume effect is non-existent; adopt superior attitude that others are misguided.

This non-scientific method is very prevalent.
E.g. millions claim to have a 'personal experience' of religion, which is, for them, a real experience. It is repeated millions of times over, but the 'scientific' community will deny it occurs as they cannot explain it. Anything 'inexplicable' does not occur, according to the scientific community.

This also affects any research which challenges currently accepted theory. It has to be mighty strong to break through the 'scientific' mind-set that puts science in the position of god.

E.g.(1) Recent research suggests that our ancestors did not walk on their knuckles as previously thought; but there is no rush to amend the 'scientific' displays in museums etc to reflect the latest research.
E.g.(2) Fossil discoveries have demoted many proto-humans previously thought to be in the direct line of descent to homo sapiens, but they continue to be shown in new text-books and museums to bolster the position of 'science'.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - Hamlet

 

On reflection, I'm not totally sure as there was any need for that!!......

 

I know where you are coming from with that comment, but if you take a rational look at most of these cases, it is not that something is inexplicable so its affect denied. It is more that there are many other possible explanations, many also more probable. In which case, while we still do not know the truth, it is likely the most straight forward explanation is true.

In the case of this blue light thing, to me, the most probable explanation still seems to be placebo or 'experimenter expectancy'. Mostly because if the creators of the device are not capable of writing a coherent explanation of how it works and what it does then... Occam's Razor

 

Has anyone watched that shite Big Brother this year? This thread has parallels.

**** sake, get a grip. The antogonists largerly claim to be objective with scientific leanings, yet the science isn't there because they don't have a fucking clue how the thing works with some having not even tried it, yet are quite certain it doesn't work. Brilliant that guys, brilliant.

The protagonists are equally baffled as to how it works but at least have bothered to sit down and listen with most reporting a 'difference'.

In the absence of understanding and a lack of common ground between the two camps it now appears to be turning towards philosophy, psychology and metaphor to bridge the gap.

 

That issue has taken up some time today.

As I say I can't really get my head around that concept. Not just now.

 

Oh, good God Almighty!

No, science does not deny the religious experience is real for those who experience it. Clearly religious experience is real for many millions of people. Merely the religious experience as proof of God (or whatever) is not corroborative scientific evidence. As for explanations there are plenty, try Freud or Jung.

The animator.. I'm certain it does work for those who have tried it, and I'm certain it would work for many others to. I think much depends on whether you have an intellectual rational brain capable of critical thought, or not. I'm sure this will be a popular idea. What time is BB on again?

 

I must say that my comment about 'religious experience' is not borne of my own experience. I do not claim to have had such an experience at all. I merely cite the fact that millions claim to have done so. I do not suggest that it is 'proof' of the existence of a deity, and there are, as Mosfet clearly states, 'explanations' from a psychological perspective. My belief remains that science denies what it cannot explain.

It is the reluctance to try something (the animator) and the bald statement that 'it doesn't work', that in this case betrays the unscientific approach masquerading as science.

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of philosophical chit chat

I think it is fair enough to state that it doesn't work, in as far as it does not do what it says in the way it says. But it clearly has an effect on the perceived sound, physically or psychologically.

 

Right, wrong. Its just a perspective based on the mindset of the individual perceiving a situation.

So whilst you may see nothing wrong, some would look at the ongoing symposium and its context to the topic and then weigh up what a philosophical slant would actually add or even bring to conclusion. The conclusion is pretty obvious - Life is too short.

 

As you say, it is dependant upon how the individual perceives the situation. Life is perfectly 'long' enough; it is ones perspective of time that is the issue. You would find you had plenty of time in your life if you hated everything you did!

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

 

Tell that to guy who is diagnosed with terminal cancer or the child who doesn't reach their 18th Birthday. Do you still consider life to be long enough?

70 years is a long time to wait but it certainly isn't a long time live.

 

Golden Ears

I don't see why it's a problem to say that some people can be more analytical about detail in audio reproduction than others - in my view it's a function of practice (and some talent - eg those musicians who have perfect pitch). Certainly it is reasonably well accepted that Masters of Wine will have a better palate than the average wine drinker so why wouldn't this apply to audio. (I would also bet a bottle of good wine that the majority of the 'cables don't sound different brigade' also think there is no point spending more than £5 on a bottle of wine)

Conversely I think that sometimes non-audiophiles (eg my wife!) find it easier to detect differences in the quality of musical reproduction in a system (as opposed the details of differences in sound). It is possible to sometimes not see the wood for the trees - shocking I know...

As an amateur musician, physicist, wine buff and keen audiophile I can only conclude that thos who cannot hear in difference in interconnects and power cables are just, well, a littele cloth-eared as to me the differences are easlity audible.

What hasn't been discussed, interestingly in my view, is whether these differences are in fact 'better' as there is where the real subjectivity comes in to play. I personally don't always like the effect some tweaks have on sound - some mains conditioners have a deleterious affect on 'musicality' imho - but I can hear the difference. The 'I don't believe it can work so therefore I can't hear it' tendency just need to get their ears syringed as there are real differences out there and they need to get out of denial.

Having said that there are some tweaks that I cannot hear make any difference - the green pen being one that springs to mind - but in general I have found that spending money on decent main cables and associated items has improved the musicality of my system.

But of course its all pretty much rubbish compared to live music...

 

When did you get so serious?

Oh well, anything is better than going round in circles about a blue light!

There are of course exceptions, at both ends of the scale. In the majority of cases don't you agree that the feeling of life being too short is just that; a feeling, and thus that individual’s perspective?

The key, it seems, would be to appreciate each moment and not be afraid to let it go when it is over. The perspective of time being too short tends to arise when one does not feel they have made the most of and appreciated the time they already had, doesn’t it?

It seems very hard not to fall in to that trap though, especially with hindsight being such a wonderful thing! I certainly haven’t mastered it yet. Hopefully I will before I die!

 

You call disagreement calling a bunch of people liars without even testing the compunction reviewed, I call it trolling... :argue:

 

Very good...

 

No...persistent gainsaying is ...especially without any foundation or experience. Just remember none of the naysayers has actually heard the unit...also there are no dissenters who have heard the unit


please use the other thread I've set up to discuss the pros and cons rather than the review thread ....

 

Nobody's been called a liar. Reading comprehension seems quite poor amongst some people here.

-- Ian