Ableton Forum

I saw this and thought "A twelve page thread about analog sounding warmer? Again? Someone's gotta be insulting someone by now..."

First line I read: "you are really retarded, sorry"

hahaha, good old interwebs.

SubFunk wrote: like i would give the slightest shit what a girl thinks of me LOL.

and you know what? measure!, measure! away and be one of those assholes that try to explain with science how i, or anyone else perceives something,
(you or anyone else knows shit about how and what i perceive, and that accounts for every single living soul, man or animal or plant on this planet, i mean no one ever knows that and certainly can't measure it even less)
you are pure evil, i hate those people trying to squash everything into a science, because they don't understand a single thing, you are a robot.

finished.

haha you're fun. have fun perceiving nonexistent stuff then, dreaming your dreams hope one day you perceive stuff in a way to be happy. maybe get out of berlin?

davepermen wrote: heh, you're retarded now. why? because perception is exactly WHAT A HUMAN MEASURES. maybe we understand the word differently?

wikipedia wrote:perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information.

sensory information, dude. MEASURABLE DATA, THEN.

please stop the personal bitching..analo versus digital bitching is fun.. personal bitching is lame...


depperman is wright.. percived equals that there is a sensory function that got triggered.. but our science is not perfect yet..

you have to know the pheneomen to develop a measurement method.. and sensory functions of the brain are still very little known...

any of you guys know the phenomen that you sense when somebody is looking at you at the street? come on..evrybody knows that...


can you explain or measure this simple thing evrybody expeiances on a regular base in live? smell? telephatie?
what sense is in action here?

the sense isnt even defined yet... is it possible that there is more too sound than is known yet?

thats a rehtoric question only dummies would answer with no...of cause ...




and a remix of a hit is never better than the original... some remixes get better because the track remixed was crap from the beginning.. but i am not aware of a single remix of a real hit that turned out to be better than the original...

thats what you copycat kids like to hear.. that a copy can be better than an original.. but sorry.. a clone has no soul... and because we value soul a copy cant be better

davepermen wrote:have fun perceiving nonexistent stuff then

well then prove the existence.

you can't! that is my point, neither you can that it doesn't... it's perception, maybe someone should explain the word to you?

i still don't think you are that limited (being polite here to avoid dom has to raise his finger)

and it's not personal bitching, he is old enough

3phase wrote: please stop the personal bitching..analo versus digital bitching is fun.. personal bitching is lame...

sorry.. i know it's lame. getting called retarded pissed me off a bit, losing the focus on the analog/digital bitching

depperman is wright.. percived equals that there is a sensory function that got triggered.. but our science is not perfect yet..

+1 (except for my name )

you have to know the pheneomen to develop a measurement method.. and sensory functions of the brain are still very little known...

+1 (which is why most psychoaccoustics measure at the point of audio entrance in the ear, and the vibrations on the whole body for subwooverstyle stuff.

any of you guys know the phenomen that you sense when somebody is looking at you at the street? come on..evrybody knows that...

yep.

can you explain or measure this simple thing evrybody expeiances on a regular base in live? smell? telephatie?
what sense is in action here?

different ones. but besides the actual ones, one thing is our own failing in actually validate statistical stuff. means, when we look up and there IS someone, then "we knew it". if there isn't one, we just forget and continue.
in the end, we might have looked 10 times, and 1 times actually someone watched. for us, that gets registered as prove, as someone looked. statistically, it's a false, as most of the time, nobody looked.
that's part of the interpretation or perception.
there are other things about how much we interpret what we actually see (shadows and such), that lead to that feeling. but it's an interesting topic.

the sense isnt even defined yet... is it possible that there is more too sound than is known yet?

sure.

thats a rehtoric question only dummies would answer with no...of cause ...

*puh*, i won the dummy test (replying while reading )

and a remix of a hit is never better than the original... some remixes get better because the track remixed was crap from the beginning.. but i am not aware of a single remix of a real hit that turned out to be better than the original...

i know tons that i prefer over the original.

thats what you copycat kids like to hear.. that a copy can be better than an original.. but sorry.. a clone has no soul... and because we value sould a copy cant be better

i'm no copycat i'm not using one audio sample, or preset, or midi file from somewhere else (except for some fun tests sometimes).
not when i'm djing of course. but for production, all handmade. but you knew that already (and i know how you like (/sarkasm) copycats)

SubFunk wrote:

davepermen wrote:have fun perceiving nonexistent stuff then

well then prove the existence.

one can't prove that, so that's outside the topic. but if you believe you exist (and you do), you do this based on perception of what your body tells you, all those nerves signaling stuff. and all of that is triggered physically, and is thus measurable (but can be technically nearly impossible to do so, of course. still it's THERE)

you can't! that is my point, neither you can that it doesn't... it's perception, maybe someone should explain the word to you?

as said, perception bases itself on the "fact" that we exist. if we do, we perceive physical existing events, and interpret them.

i still don't think you are that limited (being polite here to avoid dom has to raise his finger)

so you actually do. which shows how limited you are.

and it's not personal bitching, he is old enough

no, it's actual direct attacking. and yes, i'm an old enough tiny girl

davepermen wrote:physical

think what you want, end of discussion for me, we move in circles.

go on and measure your physical existence.

and my perception of you, for instance, i am curious... about the outcome, you can e-mail the result to catrax(at)gmail(dot)com

thanks!, for letting me know how i perceive you.

and don't tell me that there are a thousand things that lead / influence on how i perceive you... you have a few years time (if you need to) and can do all the measurements necessary and send me the result.

thanks!

haha. i know that typical hide and runaway thing about discussions about "you don't even know if reality exists". i said in my post, assuming it does (and we're not in a matrix, or some truman show, or what ever), your body and including it your brain behaves 100% on physical reactions. if you don't believe that (even while you know, or can learn to know, that it's true in the reality humanity lives in), then it's your choice to not do. it doesn't change anything.

the fact that physics and science works is what all that digital music crap AND that analogue music crap actually made possible. it made possible that we have that forum, that i'm actually alive (without medicine, i'd have been born dead), etc. it's the reason you can fly to portugal and gig there. it's the reason you have energy in your power outlet, etc.

denying it is trendy today, and is a dangerous thing. but do it if you like to. feel better to not know, than to know. believe to understand when you don't understand something. etc..




fun thing is, this all still doesn't matter or change the correctness of my point at all. if you have 0 difference in a signal, there's no difference. if you perceive it, then, it's your fantasy. and if there is a difference, then it's measurable. explorable, copyable, etc.


about "measuring everything". we're only talking about "measuring sound entering your ears, maybe your body". and i said, sometimes it might be nearly impossible to measure something. you just try to run away with some escape-arguments. typical behavior of people that can not accept having done a fault, wanting to protect their wrong points. seen it often enough.

just measure my perception of... (you can choose the topic/subject) i am happy to be at your service, you claim you can measure... go ahead.

when did i ever claimed that physical things do not exist? (you drifting way off here)

we started to argue about:

if there is a real difference perceived, then it is measurable.

tell me the difference in... hmmm what kind of units would that be? maybe perman perception units? in short ppu?

on how much my perception (towards the subject of your choice) differs in ppu's to someone else's.

that is all i am asking for, if you claim that sentence, i originally said is the by far most retarded thing i ever read in my entire life, is true...

go ahead.

davepermen wrote:haha. i know that typical hide and runaway thing about discussions about "you don't even know if reality exists". i said in my post, assuming it does (and we're not in a matrix, or some truman show, or what ever), your body and including it your brain behaves 100% on physical reactions. if you don't believe that (even while you know, or can learn to know, that it's true in the reality humanity lives in), then it's your choice to not do. it doesn't change anything.

the fact that physics and science works is what all that digital music crap AND that analogue music crap actually made possible. it made possible that we have that forum, that i'm actually alive (without medicine, i'd have been born dead), etc. it's the reason you can fly to portugal and gig there. it's the reason you have energy in your power outlet, etc.

denying it is trendy today, and is a dangerous thing. but do it if you like to. feel better to not know, than to know. believe to understand when you don't understand something. etc..

SubFunk wrote: tell me the difference in... hmmm what kind of units would that be? maybe perman perception units? in short ppu?

on how much my perception (towards the subject of your choice) differs in ppu's to someone else's.

that is all i am asking for, if you claim that sentence i originally said is the by far most retarded thing i ever read in my entire life.

go ahead.

i'm still interested in what the heck you talk about. what i said is if you perceive something, it can be measured. not that i can measure HOW you perceive it (a.k.a. interpret it), but that you have some INPUT that you then interpret.

perceiving == getting some input + interpreting it.

i can't measure your interpretation. i can measure the input. and maybe recreate it, which should result in the same, or a similar perception, then.

or said different: if you have two synths creating both, say, a saw-wave. and you listen to them and say that one sounds better to me, then there IS some difference in the audio signal. and that is measurable. if there is no difference, on what basis do you interpret it as better sounding?

davepermen wrote:on what basis do you interpret it as better sounding?

that is the point, on personal perception and that is individual to every single one of us, and not measurable in any way.

and you can never argue that someone is wrong or right in that respect (e.g. this or that sounds better), because you never know how one perceives it for himself.

SubFunk wrote:

davepermen wrote:on what basis do you interpret it as better sounding?

that is the point, on personal perception and that is individual to every single one of us, and not measurable in any way.

and that point is exactly wrong.

or placebo, as we discussed quite a bit. so if i have an analogue synth and some digital synth that sound exactly the same (quite impossible, but imagine). they create the identical sound output. you would still percieve the analogue one as better.

even if i would actually feed the digital one to the speaker, and just fake-play the analogue one.

the trick is, that personal perception then lies to you, and this can be easily proven by doing doubleblind tests. there are zero double blind tests that shows any audiophile who could detect the better audio quality of his beloved high end system once blinded. only if he sees "yes it's on the expensive one, so it sounds better".

so in short, who cares about a fake perception based on some things that have nothing to do with the audio itself if all that you want to know is if the audio is good.

damn dave its a good thing your quote button doesn't "perceive" that all that use is wearing off its paint.

@ subfunk & 3dot... just for fun, try a long post with no spaces.

there's your perception if there is no measurable difference:

Audiophile Deathmatch: Monster Cables vs. a Coat Hanger
http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-de ... oat-hanger
Whether or not Monster Cables are worth it is a war that has raged since home theater immemorial. A poster at Audioholics was put in a room with five fellow audiophiles, and a Martin Logan SL-3 speaker set at 75Db at 1000KHz playing a mix of "smooth, trio, easy listening jazz" that no one had heard before. In one corner, Monster 1000 speaker cables. In the other, four coat hangers twisted and soldered into a speaker cable.

Seven songs were played while the group was blindfolded and the cables swapped back and forth. Not only "after 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire," but no one knew a coat hanger was used in the first place.

perception of non-audible things are just that: placebo.

davepermen wrote:there's your perception if there is no measurable difference:

Audiophile Deathmatch: Monster Cables vs. a Coat Hanger
http://gizmodo.com/363154/audiophile-de ... oat-hanger
Whether or not Monster Cables are worth it is a war that has raged since home theater immemorial. A poster at Audioholics was put in a room with five fellow audiophiles, and a Martin Logan SL-3 speaker set at 75Db at 1000KHz playing a mix of "smooth, trio, easy listening jazz" that no one had heard before. In one corner, Monster 1000 speaker cables. In the other, four coat hangers twisted and soldered into a speaker cable.

Seven songs were played while the group was blindfolded and the cables swapped back and forth. Not only "after 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire," but no one knew a coat hanger was used in the first place.

perception of non-audible things are just that: placebo.

you simply don't know what one hears (perceives) or not and you can't measure it, well you think you can... then please go ahead...
and we did not just talked about hearing, but about perceiving, shall i quote you again?

so tell me in PPU's what the perceived difference is between what you hear and i (you can choose the sound), or how do i perceive you vs how tonedeft perceives you or whatever... my guess is i will have about 6-7 PPU's can that be right?

we run in circles, go on measure...

just please measure, you say it's possible... so stop arguing and DO IT or get someone doing it for you, in case you don't have the PPU unit measuring machine at hand.