Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein  Norman, have you ACTUALLY TRIED THE EXPERIMENT?
|
I have. Have you tried mine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
Until then you have no possible argument. .
|
And this here is the crux of the problem. You equate your interpretation of reality with an
absolute reality. I don't need to punch in 2+2=4 into the calculator to know the answer is 4. I don't need to experience 4 to know it. I can know it though deduction.
You have an experience and then invent a rational that makes sense to
you, but may have nothing to do with the way things actually work.
Trust your ears as little artists on the side of your head, not as little scientists. Anyone who's watched a game of 3 card monte on the street knows that the senses can easily misinterpret reality with absolute certainty. I'd put money on that.
For the record I often prefer the 'sound' of analog tape. I own an Ampex 2" machine; it's a pain in the ass to use and maintain but it sounds great. I'm able to love analog without hating digital. I see no need to polarize my preferences to justify them. I don't think digital is fundamentally 'flawed', i just think it's accurate to a fault. It can be boring and vanilla. And when there's distortion in the digital domain, it's ugly. Digital done well sounds good but requires disciplines and a different approach than traditional analog recordings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein If I feel like it, a bit later I may relate some of my experiences as an audio amp tech than suopport the fact that our perception is affected by frequencies WELL above 20K. |
I'd love to hear them. Especially tests that prove we can hear and experience sonics above 20k.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein
Btw, that's an amusing story, but it's utter nonsense.
|
Calling my little story nonsense isn't an argument. But you knew that. Awaiting your tests with open ears.
