> > Op Thursday 31 March 2005 20:07, schreef paul kavicky: >> and i don't think that it's all >> some psychological hoo haa. > > As long as you close yourself off to parts of the scope like this, > don't > expect a sensible discussion or a usable result. > > Now anyone who searches for mysteries in the first domain, and > discards any > psychological influence as "hoo haa" has absolutely no clue what he's > talking > about. well, at least your responses are predictably pedantic. my point was that it might not be ALL about the psychology. and the meat of my post was that i suspect that there are things tin digital audio hat would eventually be able to be tested for which would demonstrate additional reasons why people are consistently hearing differences in said digital audio. a few posts later we found out one empirical and mathematical reason why summing might sound different, so that leads to my point. too many good engineers have the same reaction to audio for me to say it's all simply hoo haa. and i think that anyone who says that they are all imagining it has no clue what they are talking about. you didn't give a nod to the portion of my post that delved into the fact that your arguments that the math can't be wrong were the ones that were used when digital first came out. and people who heard differences in the audio were called fools then as well. later those fools were proved right. while i do want further information about digital audio to come to us in provable, empirical, and perhaps even mathematical form to rule out all things subjective, i assert that our current tests like phase inversion simply don't reveal all of the facts. i think to assume that we have all of the facts right now is arrogant and incorrect. especially as that assumption means that so many respected engineers, quoted here and otherwise, are assumed to be wrong for hearing differences. digiital audio is still a relatively young technology and i expect it to become better, and our understanding of it to grow, as time goes on. it's improved a lot in the last few years. and our understanding of it has grown. i am simply stating that the advancements in digital audio will likely reveal why we've been hearing differences now. and i bet there will be an actual provable technical reason that we can discover. and we might know more about this fairly soon given the rate of advancement in digital audio. so i do want the evidence to come in provable objective form. and i think it will. that will make us all happy. for now, though, i'll trust my ears more than my slide rule. that's what this job is about. cheers, paul pounce international http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/ - keyboard forum moderator

> well, at least your responses are predictably pedantic. I'm just being consistent. :o) Not that speaking of psychological issues as "hoo haa" isn't pedantic.. > my point was that it might not be ALL about the psychology. and the > meat of my post was that i suspect that there are things tin digital > audio hat would eventually be able to be tested for which would > demonstrate additional reasons why people are consistently hearing > differences in said digital audio. Not inside the digital domain. And what I replied to in the first place was the idea that lightpipe and adat as interfaces gave different results. > a few posts later we found out one empirical and mathematical reason > why summing might sound different, so that leads to my point. Of course, different reolutions lead to different results. I never disputed that. But weird stories about magical properties of numbers will perpetuate as long as the point of the discussion keeps changing to fit the argument, especially since the conclusion is always "they said it couldn't make a difference, and be hold it does, so who knows what else is possible". (Since this discussion was about said monitoring systems, the whole Lightpipe/Adat comparison I guess shouldn't have come up in the first place). My point was, is and will be: The same information passed to the same DA-converter will lead to the same sound,regardless of themedium used to deliver the information as long as it appears correctly and in time. > too many > good engineers have the same reaction to audio for me to say it's all > simply hoo haa. and i think that anyone who says that they are all > imagining it has no clue what they are talking about. You're throwing all cases on a pile, and then I'd be the last to say they're "all imagining it". But psychological aspects are an essential part of hearing, you still seem to think that it's "imagination" or "not real". It is real. It's just not a physical aspect of the sound itself. > you didn't give a > nod to the portion of my post that delved into the fact that your > arguments that the math can't be wrong were the ones that were used > when digital first came out. Yes I did actually. Math was used to claim everything up to the DA-conversion was perfect. Which of course was nonsence. But no reason to suspect mystical things happening INSIDE the digital domain (and ignoring things happening in the brain, where we actualy KNOW that we don't know anything). > and people who heard differences in the > audio were called fools then as well. later those fools were proved > right. Exactly. This changes nothing about anything I said though. > while i do want further information about digital audio to come to us > in provable, empirical, and perhaps even mathematical form You don't really want that, because you've been ignoring most of the mathematical proof I gave you. > to rule out > all things subjective, i assert that our current tests like phase > inversion simply don't reveal all of the facts. No, but they reveal all the facts you can hear, except psychological aspects since they aren't relative to volume, meaning that contrary to physical aspects, they don't become clearer when the rest of the sound becomes lower in volume. > i think to assume that > we have all of the facts right now is arrogant and incorrect. Youjust have to know which facts to assume right and which ones to doubt. If you just doubt any mathematical fact, you'll never get anywhere. > especially as that assumption means that so many respected engineers, > quoted here and otherwise, are assumed to be wrong for hearing > differences. There you go again. Psychological aspects are not wrong, imagined or lied, they're real. Just the cause is somewhere else than people might think. And in the case of your examples, mathematical rules were applied in the wrong place (to claim there is no such thing as a bad DA-converter). That doesn't mean all mathematical rules are wrong or unproven. > will make us all happy. for now, though, i'll trust my ears more than > my slide rule. that's what this job is about. That's no problem as long as you don't discard psychology, because that IS in your ears and not in your slide rule. :o) Because if you assume EVERY difference will be explained SOME time, you can never be proven wrong (and you will be wrong at some point). Maurits.

Hi, I run Logic 5.5 on a 1.6 gig pc w/ Windows 98 and 512 ram. I'm thinking of upgraing to a faster processor and Windows XP. I have two questions. 1. Should I stick with service pack 1 for XP (my music computer is not my online computer). 2. Will there be a problem with Logic if I get a processor with hyperthreading (this computer is used only for music). Thanks for any help, -- Buddy Nuanez 40:31 Music

Buddy Nuanez wrote: > I run Logic 5.5 on a 1.6 gig pc w/ Windows 98 and 512 ram. I'm > thinking of > upgraing to a faster processor and Windows XP. I have two questions. > 1. Should I stick with service pack 1 for XP (my music computer is not my > online computer). > 2. Will there be a problem with Logic if I get a processor with > hyperthreading (this computer is used only for music). I have recentley upgraded my PC to a P4 3gig with XP home sp2. I use logic 5.5.1 and so 4 weeks no problems. Mike

>1. Should I stick with service pack 1 for XP (my music computer is not my online computer). I would - SP2 is still fincky. >2. Will there be a problem with Logic if I get a processor with hyperthreading (this computer is used only for music). Nope - I have a P4 with HT and it's rockin! Logic doesnt run into memory issues with more than 1GB of RAM in the machine.. mainly acts weird with Kompakt as far as can tell. Cheers, - - - - - - - - - - - - Neil Parfitt - - - - - - - - - - - - NEILAUDIO - Creative Music Services Phone: (416) 850-8141 Email: neil@... Web: www.neilaudio.com