Randy Myers
Well-known member
I used to own the original VPI machine, way back in the day. The Record Doctor seems to do a great job so far 
...
...
Why no turntable?
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
As you noted, there is no actual science discussed in this article. I often wonder how Neil Young effectively criticizes the sound of CD’s, since his digital hearing aids are lower digital resolution than CD’s 16/44.1?
[emoji23][emoji23]
I wonder how many reviewers have hearing issues that prevents them from objectively hear all the things they claim to hear. Maybe they should be required to do a hearing test every year or every other year and post it to prove that they are not hearing impaired. [emoji51]
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Wow. That is the funniest abject nonsense I've read in a long while.:lol:
Who obviously knows less than zero about information theory and sampled systems, not to mention human binaural hearing!
Must have been some incredible drugs back at 70s Caltech.
Check this other gem https://www.fairobserver.com/more/s...tion-science-news-physics-culture-news-34891/
Far out man.
Well, yet another example of believers seeking an "objective" crutch to prop up a purely subjective preference.
Shadowfax
Well-known member
Check this other gem https://www.fairobserver.com/more/s...tion-science-news-physics-culture-news-34891/
Far out man.
Well, yet another example of believers seeking an "objective" crutch to prop up a purely subjective preference.
AJ, I read thru most of that link and it is not all bull. I have personal experience with a few different meditation techniques including the Tibetan Bowls. My wife is a Meditation Instructor and years ago I bought her an incredible tool. It is a Light/Sound Machine and it resets your brainwaves. Pretty much the gist of your referenced article. The bottom line is that Meditation in certain ways leads to healing. I have experience in Visualizing the outcomes and healing of surgeries. My first shoulder was pretty serious but I was being thrown out of therapy early while others that had similar surgery the same week were still getting stretched out and far from rehabbed.
Anyway, back on topic, sort of, the Photosonix Nova 100 is the unit we have. You wear a pair of sunglasses that have several LEDs on the inside, you keep your eyes closed. You wear headphones for the sound. You can use pre made or make your own sessions. It uses flashing lights and sounds such as Pulsed Frequencies, Pulsed Surf, Pulsed Chord, Binaural beats, Bb with Surf and many more.
You can take yourself to or thru levels of Alpha-Beta-Theta. You can energize, invoke creativity, relax, and many different states of mind.
http://www.photosonix.com/products/nova-pro-100/
So, you may be chuckling at that article, but it is more on track than you realize. Don't knock it until you have tried it.
Cheers
I take it that you are not a fan of cognitive neuroscience or neurobiology. Fair enough
.While you obviously vehemently disagree with the author's thesis, I certainly appreciate your taking the time to read it.
I take it that you are not a fan of cognitive neuroscience or neurobiology. Fair enough
While you obviously vehemently disagree with the author's thesis, I certainly appreciate your taking the time to read it.
it really has nothing to do with believing (or not) the author’s “thesis”; it is about the article claiming to be about science, or having a basis in science, and that is just not true. It is purely conjecture and opinion, which would not even be an issue if it had been presented as such.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
I'm a "fan" of science, both those fields included. What I'm not a fan of is crackpots using their "credentials" (classic Appeal to Authority fallacy) to hide behind the guise of "scientific authority", while positing utter nonsense hidden in obscure publications that have zero vetting. The disclaimer at bottom of the articles says it all.
The good Dr knows better than to publish that in any sort of scientific journal with peer review, where he would look like a total fool. He has strayed waaay outside his actual field of expertise with this one, in rather embarrassing fashion. Of course he intends to appeal to fellow believers, not scientifically informed readers. Hence where he posted this.
You're welcome and thanks for posting, obviously I would not have seen otherwise. There is no thesis there, just inane ramblings about some old decrepit deaf rocker trying to ascribe his mental health issues to external physical properties of "digital" processing. As I said previously, just another example of the unease of audiophiles - needing an "objective" crutch to "validate" their purely subjective preferences. Nothing new here at all.
cheers,
AJ
p.s. as also stated many times, I too occasionally enjoy the sound of vinyl, just not for any idiotic "neurobiological" reason other than I like the sound. Just like digital.
If that’s how you interpret it, then I respect your opinion.
My interpretation is different than yours, I view it as the author trying to reconcile (to himself and others) the intellectual chasm dividing the scientific absolutists and the empirical rationalists. Ironically, it appears that the loosely constructed argument you employ in you dismissal of his theory serves as an extant example of the musicians vs. engineers debate and the asymmetrical advantages the scientific absolutists hold over the empirical rationalists. However, subjectively deconstructing the structure of a thesis is not the same as objectively refuting its central point.
While I’m not prepared to embrace the author’s ideas, I’m also not in a rush to dismiss them based on my own prevailing dogma. It opens up some interesting avenues of inquiry, even when only used as a thought exercise.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Is that what Flat earthers, healing crystals, power bracelet, bigfoot sighters, etc, etc, etc, etc, et al are calling themselves these days?
News to me
Understood, I would imagine that his doctoral thesis that this article appears to be loosely based on would have been peer reviewed. However, I do agree with you that our critical thinking should not stop at the end of the article and that we should be attuned to both the accuracy and agenda of the author.
Thank you for reminding us all to adopt a healthy skepticism when consuming content pulled from the web, but AJ but please bear in mind, this sword cuts both ways.
I do believe that you're getting wrapped up in his perceived indictment of digital recording. Since he seems to be attacking your field of expertise, I would expect a little rancor. Nonetheless, I do think that there is a valid thesis lurking in this article and my synthesized and stylized (and possibly romanticized) version of his thesis is a derivation of the Turing test; rather than asking "can a machine be made to think like a human well enough to deceive another human?", his question is "can a machine be made to hear like a human?". And since the doctor is admittedly not an engineer, his approach to address this conundrum originates naturally from the neurobiological direction, the application of the biomechanics of how a person "hears" at a molecular/synaptic level. Now we can debate whether this research holds any value and for that I can say that I honestly don't know. Could we also speculate on whether that research would result in the development of digital audio reproduction technologies that reorient some subjective differences in musical reproduction into objective differences, I don't know that either. But as I mentioned earlier, I see no reason to summarily dismiss his research simply because it conflicts with my prevailing biases. And many would admit that it is an interesting thought exercise, can the process of hearing be broken down into discrete bits of code, and once the biomechanical process has been reverse-engineered, can it be reapplied and introduced back into the field of digital audio reproduction to improve the overall listener experience?
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
You misunderstand. The Drs entire "thesis" is based on nonsense. That the sample rate determines the time resolution of the signal. His quoted number is nonsense. Everything after that basis, including human verified limits, is nonsense.
Furthermore, using the mental health issues of an old deaf, electric guitar rock concert musician, as some form of sonic reference is nonsense. The false dichotomy between "scientists/engineers" and "musicians" is nonsense. Neil Young isn't "musicians". He's just a sample of one dotard.
The entire article is new age believer nonsense. THAT is why it appears in "Fair Observer", not any sort of scientific journal.
P.s. You probably don't know about my experiments with believers like the good Dr. and exactly what he is "theorizing" about "digital".
The empirical results are very funny indeed.
Furthermore, using the mental health issues of an old deaf, electric guitar rock concert musician, as some form of sonic reference is nonsense. The false dichotomy between "scientists/engineers" and "musicians" is nonsense. Neil Young isn't "musicians". He's just a sample of one dotard.
The entire article is new age believer nonsense. THAT is why it appears in "Fair Observer", not any sort of scientific journal.
P.s. You probably don't know about my experiments with believers like the good Dr. and exactly what he is "theorizing" about "digital".
The empirical results are very funny indeed.
I’m not “dismissing his theory”, in fact I’m not commenting on it at all except to point out that is not based on any science, it is based on philosophy, and so shouldn’t be presented as a scientfic argument.
Fair enough. My background is not in either acoustic engineering or neurobiology so I will most certainly defer to your expertise.
Sadly online isn't the ideal environment to engage in deep conversations because there are a couple of things you've written that I'd love to have you expound on. I think it would be educational and enlightening for me and quite possibly amusing and entertaining for you.
I appreciate and enjoyed the conversation, AJ. Thank you.
back to our regularly scheduled programming...
the simAudio 110LP v2 looks like a winner... just having researched a number of similar phonos with similar capabilities and pricing, this one seems to have comparably much better specs and a number of quite good reviews.
have not heard any of them but it would seem hard to go wrong here with the 110LP v2 for an entry-level / analog-trial setup?
the simAudio 110LP v2 looks like a winner... just having researched a number of similar phonos with similar capabilities and pricing, this one seems to have comparably much better specs and a number of quite good reviews.
have not heard any of them but it would seem hard to go wrong here with the 110LP v2 for an entry-level / analog-trial setup?
- Thread Author
- #316
Agreed. We have it here in the store and it’s crazy good for the money.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Phishphan
Active member
I have a TT, it’s sitting on my rack and never gets used. Too much hassle compared to using my iPad and flipping through Roon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Randy Myers
Well-known member
The simAudio is a phone stage, Correct?
Compared to the two others recommended in this thread; the Vista Audio or the Lounge Audio?
Or the MoFi? They are all in the same range.
Compared to the two others recommended in this thread; the Vista Audio or the Lounge Audio?
Or the MoFi? They are all in the same range.
yes -- simAudio 110LP v2 -- is a MM/MC phono stage
mofi, lounge, vista, iFi and lehmann were others i specifically looked at... as mentioned, i have not heard any of these. just going on specs, reviews and relative price -- absolutely nothing "scientific" here.
there are a lot of others out there as well such as pro-ject, schiit, etc.
are you using the on-board phono stage on the u-turn? any impressions?
Kingrex
Active member
I'm kind of burning out on mine too after a few days. When I play it, I listen to it. Takes too much attention. When I put my digital files back on its like Ahhh. I can just sit back and enjoy the music. It's like I notice the TT. Even when it was a stock RP6 with the Allnic Phono pre. I noticed the TT. That caused me to start upgrading it. It's way beyond where it started. But I still notice it. It's casing me to be too involved in the music which is detracting from the music for me.
Additionally, I have 1 album I think sounds better in vinyl than what I have in digital. So far. There are lots I have not compared. Who cares if they are not the same bla bla bla. Point is, everything I like and play sound better on my digital setup. I said once before. I have a lot of tube gear feeding open baffle horn loaded speakers. It's quiet as tubes can be, but still tube. I am guessing the synergy in my setup is better to have a very clean quiet digital source feeding into my tube chain. Just a thought. Maybe a case of To Much Of A Good Thing. Or I just have $7,000 of crap vinyl equipment and bought the wrong equipment. Having played it next to VPI gear, it sounded good to me, but who knows. I could not tell much difference between a $3k and $15K table. Of course I was at a foreign setup and everything sound so different. Also, the owner will not play a record twice. So everything was different. No way to really go back and forth to understand what changed.
I'm not getting rid of my vinyl. I just have little incentive to play the upgrade/invest more game. I'm darn happy with the digital front end.