I think the most pure, and complex music ever is nature

___________________

ಠ_ಠ
<|>
/ω\

Can't argue with that.

What if we constructed an artificial nature more complex than the default nature? It would not be artificial, it would be a more complex nature.

I found this. It's a mixture of clear, logical points and craziness. Yeah, it's one of those pages. Keep that in mind.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html

Snippet:

quote:

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE My Audio Philosophy is basic and simple: I believe in Audio Minimalism It doesn't matter if your audio system is primarily analog, digital or both. This means the fewest components (no line stage) and fewest parts (speaker drivers), the shortest cables and the simplest signal path; even down to the minimum number of solder joints. Only simplicity is able to capture the complexities of music, while complex circuits will inevitably sound simple, predictable and, ultimately, boring. This doesn't mean utilizing shoddy or compromised parts, cheap power supplies, cases etc. Execution is crucial for the benefits of minimalism to be heard. Also, as Albert Einstein has said, care must be taken not to make things "too simple". When following this basic guideline, and with proper execution, several positive results will occur simultaneously: 1. You will hear more of the music, instead of your system. 2. What you hear will sound more natural or "musical". 3. Your system will be "quieter", in every sense of that word. 4. Your system will be more reliable, and the inevitable repairs will cost less. 5. Your system will cost both less to purchase and maintain. 6. Your system will be easier to "understand" and operate. 7. There will be far less need to make (expensive) upgrades.

___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear

Akridot, you might like to read "how music really works" sometime.

It covers some of the points you raised, and why the general population won't ever be listening to high speed glitch music.

Music is a language of emotions, with some artists able to express themselves better than others, by learning their craft. It is very similar to great writers being able to express themselves better than not-so-great writers, by learning how to put words together effectively.

Are all books today superior to Shakespeare? No - they're different, language changes slightly to fit the times, but it simply won't happen that language becomes better and better and at some point the general population will be reading highly condensed algebraic formula for fun, because the formulas somehow deliver a bookful of information in a sentence. The white space is as important as the black, in the same way that in music, silence and gaps are as important as the musical tones.

Yes, it can be interesting to let one's mind wander down various avenues of thought, but many of these avenues are quite pointless on a practical level.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot When I make music I always think to myself: "How is it possible that music is infinite? Won't we repeat ourselves?

We could have human enhancements to hear beyond our normal limits.

At one point or another, everything will be wiped out. We probably aren't the first earth, so we're probably making shit other people already made.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi change your avatar for fucks sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot Can't argue with that. What if we constructed an artificial nature more complex than the default nature? It would not be artificial, it would be a more complex nature.

Well, given the current wealth of knowledge humans have about the universe, I think it's safe to say that the universe is infinite in just about every context. Since we are talking about audio, think about just listening to nature. The subtleties are mind boggling.
However, even though the world supposedly has infinite depth that does not mean it contains all possibilities since an infinite set is not required to contain all possible outcomes.

Therefore I propose all of TA work together to build a "universe teleporter" allowing us to move from universe to universe at will to experience an even greater subset of all possible universes that also have infinite depth. Unfortunately, even then we would have to travel to an infinite number of universes to experience everthing. so FAIL

Edit: Summary, I don't think a infinite depth is an issue. It's the realm of possible sounds and sound combinations that is.

___________________

ಠ_ಠ
<|>
/ω\

quote:

Originally posted by derail Akridot, you might like to read "how music really works" sometime. It covers some of the points you raised, and why the general population won't ever be listening to high speed glitch music. Music is a language of emotions, with some artists able to express themselves better than others, by learning their craft. It is very similar to great writers being able to express themselves better than not-so-great writers, by learning how to put words together effectively. Are all books today superior to Shakespeare? No - they're different, language changes slightly to fit the times, but it simply won't happen that language becomes better and better and at some point the general population will be reading highly condensed algebraic formula for fun, because the formulas somehow deliver a bookful of information in a sentence. The white space is as important as the black, in the same way that in music, silence and gaps are as important as the musical tones. Yes, it can be interesting to let one's mind wander down various avenues of thought, but many of these avenues are quite pointless on a practical level.

Thanks for the recommendation and the insight. I can't wait to get my hands on that book, it seems like an essential read for me. I've already connected emotion with music in my mind... however, it's still possible to listen to music introspectively, is it not? Sometimes, we listen to something because it's complex and intricate.

I agree with you about the general population. There are many people who aren't part of that.

When you "pointless on a practical level" do you mean that in the sense of "don't reinvent the wheel, even if you are creative, you're wasting your (creative) time" or "such thoughts have no value. don't even bother with them" ? It makes sense to use existing foundations to build new units of meaning, but what if we're doing something completely new that has no foundation yet?

If you have any other similar books to recommend, feel free to PM me or post them in this thread.

___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear

Last edited by Akridrot on Aug-29-2009 at 05:47

quote:

Originally posted by Akridrot Suppose I had you listen to 56kbps MP3s, and only 56kbps MP3s, until you were 25 years old. You've never heard anything of higher quality. Even in real life. It would be as if I put some kind of negative hearing aid in your ears. You will, of course, hear many songs that you love even if they're only 56kbps. When the hearing "aid" is finally removed, and I play a high quality .WAV or take you to a live performance, what do you think will happen? Do you think you will enjoy extreme high quality by that point?

Having grown up with vinyls and then cassette tapes, I can safely say that the answer is yes. Most people will prefer higher quality after a fairly short period of adjustment.

Anyway, if you want to discuss philosophy then I suggest starting your own thread instead instead of bringing an unrelated discussion way off topic.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Having grown up with vinyls and then cassette tapes, I can safely say that the answer is yes. Most people will prefer higher quality after a fairly short period of adjustment. Anyway, if you want to discuss philosophy then I suggest starting your own thread instead instead of bringing an unrelated discussion way off topic.

You're right, sorry about that.

___________________
"If she's old enough to crawl, she's already in position." -- Pedobear

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut With all due respect, I think that you're missing the point. The source is ALREADY in 32-bit. If your source material is a 24-bit sample, then the most significant downconversion (from floating-point to fixed-point) has already happened, and your comparison is simply one of dithering vs. truncation (which is what your MP3 encoder will do). These will obviously sound very slightly different, but the truncation (the one you identify as being clearer) is actually the one with worse fidelity. Think of anti-aliased text or graphics that you usually see on screens today vs. the old-school machines where you could always see the jagged edges - it's the same concept. It's just not a valid test to start from 24-bit unless the entire sample is recorded from a live source into a 24-bit ADC. You need to start with the same bitrate that's native to the production environment, and that's either 32 or 64 bit floating point depending on your PC. If it's what you want then I'll take a couple of old tracks and upload the samples that I specified in the earlier post - one dithered directly to 16 bits and another dithered to 24 bits and then dithered again to 16 bits. No truncation, i.e. trying to encode a 24-bit sample to MP3 - we already know why that sounds different.

I respect your posts, but you have completely derailed this thread. There is a big reason why I put no tech specs, in capital letters, on the thread title.

I don't care about anything you just talked about.

Give me a 24 bit sample pack and give me a 16 bit sample pack and I will tell you which one is which and, as I have already said, I think the 24 bit pack sounds better. I don't care what kind of math you want to apply to it.

that is just stupid. it might have been mentioned already but most people actualy prefer 320mp3 over wav beacuse it distorts abit adding some grit which people seems to like, that doesnt make it better in any way. what sounds good is very diferent from person to person, and its stupid to talk about 24bit vs 16bit without talking about specs and facts and maths etc.

quote:

Originally posted by palm its stupid to talk about 24bit vs 16bit without talking about specs and facts and maths etc.

Then start paying attention to thread titles and stay out of this one