NWR: Stereo Disorder Question

I would encourage all of you to invest in a decent audio system. If you have money to buy the wine we discuss here, you have money for audio, and unlike our beloved wine, it does not disappear with use. We are truly in the golden age of audio right now - $2k (or less if your focused like Ian) will buy you an excellent system. Depending on your temperament and preferences, you could either take the streaming or vinyl or dare I say FM route. I guarantee you will enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Probably will when the kids are gone and/or we have more space and/or one of the kids becomes obsessed.
 
originally posted by BJ:

I would encourage all of you to invest in a decent audio system. If you have money to buy the wine we discuss here, you have money for audio, and unlike our beloved wine, it does not disappear with use ... I guarantee you will enjoy it.
Click to expand...

I approach any expense over a couple of hundred dollars with trepidation; 'focus' ensues. Anyway, glad you think this is a good idea.

I'd say Pavel's (generalized) is the one universal truth here, not objective. Unless summing across all possible subjective assessments somehow brings you to a definition of objectivity. I imagine Jonathan can straighten us out on this.

Echoing Jayson, thanks again for all the interest expressed in this topic.
 
If it can be externally registered and would exist without us being there, it is objective. If not, not. Thus, I assume, the different types of sound different stereos and registration devices produce, would be objective. Our various preferences for one or another of these would not. It's not that hard, really.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If it can be externally registered and would exist without us being there, it is objective. If not, not. Thus, I assume, the different types of sound different stereos and registration devices produce, would be objective. Our various preferences for one or another of these would not. It's not that hard, really.
Click to expand...

Modern physics tends to view the measuring device as part of the objective reality. So is it really that easy?
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If it can be externally registered and would exist without us being there, it is objective. If not, not. Thus, I assume, the different types of sound different stereos and registration devices produce, would be objective. Our various preferences for one or another of these would not. It's not that hard, really.
Click to expand...

Modern physics tends to view the measuring device as part of the objective reality. So is it really that easy?
Click to expand...

*It* is still objective. Your name/value for the measurements you took aren't what you think they are.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If it can be externally registered and would exist without us being there, it is objective. If not, not. Thus, I assume, the different types of sound different stereos and registration devices produce, would be objective. Our various preferences for one or another of these would not. It's not that hard, really.
Click to expand...

Modern physics tends to view the measuring device as part of the objective reality. So is it really that easy?
Click to expand...

Do not the measuring objects not merely register objects but themselves register in one way or another as them? If you go away, are they not still there? The fact that human beings make them doesn't mean they don't exist outside of human perception. The relevance of the measuring concepts and whether they, in fact, measure things that are indeed out there is another issue, answerable only by the specific object in question. I suspect your ruler does measure things about the object. Parker points, on the other hand, are ways of articulating how Parker evaluates about an object.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
If it can be externally registered and would exist without us being there, it is objective. If not, not. Thus, I assume, the different types of sound different stereos and registration devices produce, would be objective. Our various preferences for one or another of these would not. It's not that hard, really.
Click to expand...

Modern physics tends to view the measuring device as part of the objective reality. So is it really that easy?
Click to expand...

Do not the measuring objects not merely register objects but themselves register in one way or another as them? If you go away, are they not still there? The fact that human beings make them doesn't mean they don't exist outside of human perception. The relevance of the measuring concepts and whether they, in fact, measure things that are indeed out there is another issue, answerable only by the specific object in question. I suspect your ruler does measure things about the object. Parker points, on the other hand, are ways of articulating how Parker evaluates about an object.
Click to expand...

I honestly don’t understand what you wrote. The premise in modern physics is that the only things we know are what are measured. Whether any particular measurement is done by a person or a machine doesn’t change that. So the fact a human, a machine, or an ensemble of either may register the pressure fluctuations of air in a room (sound) differently is ultimately what we observe. We can’t observe the pressure fluctuations directly so what you might call objective then (I think) has no value in this discussion.
 
No, he's making the kind of primitive metaphysical error scientists are wont to make. Measurements are how human beings know that things exist. They aren't the existence of the things themselves. It's of course true that more us to know they are there, we have to have a way to register that they are there. That is why I began my definition of objectivity with "if it can be externally registered. Unless Jayson can distinguish between his measurements and external registration, I'm not sure what he is objecting to.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Aren't you treading kinda close to solipsism there?
Click to expand...

Me? That’s truly a logical jump. I don’t even get how you get there from what I wrote. But I’m also not attaching any normative slant on what’s better. Just making an observation about how a physicist might look at things.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
No, he's making the kind of primitive metaphysical error scientists are wont to make. Measurements are how human beings know that things exist. They aren't the existence of the things themselves. It's of course true that more us to know they are there, we have to have a way to register that they are there. That is why I began my definition of objectivity with "if it can be externally registered. Unless Jayson can distinguish between his measurements and external registration, I'm not sure what he is objecting to.
Click to expand...

At a quantum level you can’t really distinguish because the measurement device is part of and coupled to your system. So the measurement device is in your language actually part of the thing itself. But you can make some approximations to separate them.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
No, he's making the kind of primitive metaphysical error scientists are wont to make. Measurements are how human beings know that things exist. They aren't the existence of the things themselves. It's of course true that more us to know they are there, we have to have a way to register that they are there. That is why I began my definition of objectivity with "if it can be externally registered. Unless Jayson can distinguish between his measurements and external registration, I'm not sure what he is objecting to.
Click to expand...

At a quantum level you can’t really distinguish because the measurement device is part of and coupled to your system. So the measurement device is in your language actually part of the thing itself. But you can make some approximations to separate them.
Click to expand...

I have a primitive understanding of the difficulties quantum theory presents to pre-scientific metaphysics and I respect them. But it is a special problem. And, even as you explain the difficulty here, my distinction still exists. Some physical elements' behaviours changes when humans measure them in ways that are baffling to common sense. But that doesn't mean they don't have an out thereness separable from our measuring them. Presumably they still existed in C19, before humans measured them, not to say in 300,000 BCE, before there even were human beings to measure them. At least to my understanding, Heisenberg isn't Schopenhauer.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Aren't you treading kinda close to solipsism there?
Click to expand...

Me? That’s truly a logical jump. I don’t even get how you get there from what I wrote. But I’m also not attaching any normative slant on what’s better. Just making an observation about how a physicist might look at things.
Click to expand...
My point, such as it is, is that you are focused on the existence of the measurements and denying that those indicate that there is a particular thing that exists independently of them. (I agree that "indicate" is not a scientific term but the existence of the roast chicken whose temperature I have just quick-checked is indicated many times over.)
 
There is something seriously wrong with this thread. It's entitled Stereo Disorder, and yet everyone's HiFi seems to be in perfectly working order. Well, I am going to fix this thread, because mine is not.

Would love to call upon BJ and the disorderly geeks to weigh in on the following situation. If some of you are Mac users, that might be helpful.

Last year, a great friend of mine all but replaced his entire stereo but wasn't quite ready to sell his old one, so he loaned me a couple of components including an absolutely stunning preamp - a prism sound orpheus, that is about seven years old. I say stunning because I've conducted the basic controlled experiment, and the difference in CD playback, and even more so with downloaded high def files, is remarkable.

The issue at hand is that the orpheus is just old enough only to have a firewire input. In order to play my drive that has 3-4TBs of music, I needed a music server, so I invested into a refurbished older mac mini. Why an older one? As I couldn't find one old enough with a firewire output, I had a premonition (based on some anecdotal evidence) that new mac minis will not take kindly to my using a thunderbolt to firewire converter. As it turned out, this mac mini doesn't either. When plugging into the orpheus through the thunderbolt-to-firewire adaptor, neither of them see each other. The mac does not even recognize the connection. The thunderbolt bridge itself is in order, as tested with a display monitor, and the preamp port is just fine as well, based on connecting other older macs borrowed from friends.

We've tried everything we could think of. We even got in touch with the lead tech guy for prism sound in the States, and he was quite surprised we are having this problem. It would appear that, as of a certain OS upgrade on the mac, one that they were sure to stick on my refurbished machine, this type of connection is busted. What makes it frustrating is that we have evidence of same-generation OS on a mac mini functioning with this setup in the past, so if it's a software upgrade, it's subtle.

Not the end of the world in that this is a borrowed preamp, and I will eventually need to get my own ( probably a benchmark la4 as I mentioned to BJ ), but it would sure be nice to take advantage of this monster with the majority of my music which is on the drive. Any ideas or related experiences appreciated!
 
This is totally not my type of geekery. I really am IT clueless for the most part. I just hook things up and get pissed when they don't work. It took me forever to get all my Tidal/Naim/Bluesound shit working together, and that included having to replace my modem and router (I'm still a little confused about the difference).

This seems like a good thing to post on audiokarma or the steve hoffman forum, I think?
 
Must say that I am enjoying my Emotiva BaseX A2 centered system greatly. Size does matter. It is currently driving a pair of power hungry Kef W-150’s fed source signal by nothing more than an Apple Express. No pre amp so the IPhone through Airplay is the source of choice these days. All streaming services are available through the phone so why not? The amp turns on and off sensing the signal from the airport express. No separate remote or getting up from the couch? As long as you are part of the Apple ecosystem anyone can play DJ. It is truly a great time to listen to music
 
originally posted by JasonA:
Must say that I am enjoying my Emotiva BaseX A2 centered system greatly. Size does matter. It is currently driving a pair of power hungry Kef W-150’s fed source signal by nothing more than an Apple Express. No pre amp so the IPhone through Airplay is the source of choice these days. All streaming services are available through the phone so why not? The amp turns on and off sensing the signal from the airport express. No separate remote or getting up from the couch? As long as you are part of the Apple ecosystem anyone can play DJ. It is truly a great time to listen to music
Click to expand...

Yes, but I believe that AirPlay can stream lossless files only up to 16-bit / 44.1 kHz. Since I burned a fair number of SACDs to a hard drive, having replaced a lot of CDs with them, they do not play over Airplay (neither does any DSD 64 or DSD 128 music I bought as digital content). Need my Roon setup or Audirvana for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top