Diva vs Analogue - a real world test

[IncarnateX]

Naming it "vs. analog" is moronic. It just makes you look stupid.

I'm telling you, you look stupid.

Stop pretending you know what you're doing or know what you're dealing with. You clearly don't.

So, this thread demonstrated that most of the voters are clueless or careless (or both) regarding the skills and knowledge required to identify the source of the recordings.
I already knew that.

This is stupid in my opinion because most people are stupid, and giving stupid people control of something yields stupid results.

Narcissism core symptoms:

An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
A lack of psychological awareness
Difficulty with empathy
Problems distinguishing the self from others
Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults
Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
Haughty body language
Flattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)
Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
Pretending to be more important than they really are
Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
Denial of remorse and gratitude

Careful now AD, we are almost there

[Mutant]

Homosexuality also used to be considered a condition, but that has changed.

Under an astronomical amount of pressure from some pressure groups.
Next time world alcoholics will do the same "we are not sick, we are just different, stop trying to heal us and stop offending us by saying that there is something wrong with us !".

Also if we are so far offtopic, all i need to do to make the thread complete is mention:
HITLER !

[aciddose]

More importantly, back on topic.

In the sense of "warm"; again, it is possible to "think of the sensation of warmth" when you hear a sound. This isn't typically the meaning conveyed by the word however.

So it should be obvious this is all a ridiculous attempt to justify the use of these terms by outright lying about how they are used.

Nobody means "when I hear the sound it makes me feel warm".
Rarely do they mean (I have never known anyone to mean) "when I hear the sound it reminds me of warmth."

They mean something technical but they lack the ability to describe it.

[trimph1]

Homosexuality also used to be considered a condition, but that has changed.

Under an astronomical amount of pressure from some pressure groups.
Next time world alcoholics will do the same "we are not sick, we are just different, stop trying to heal us and stop offending us by saying that there is something wrong with us !".

Also if we are so far offtopic, all i need to do to make the thread complete is mention:
HITLER !

Now you did it...

[trimph1]

More importantly, back on topic.

In the sense of "warm"; again, it is possible to "think of the sensation of warmth" when you hear a sound. This isn't typically the meaning conveyed by the word however.

So it should be obvious this is all a ridiculous attempt to justify the use of these terms by outright lying about how they are used.

Nobody means "when I hear the sound it makes me feel warm".
Rarely do they mean (I have never known anyone to mean) "when I hear the sound it reminds me of warmth."

They mean something technical but they lack the ability to describe it.

Hey!!! Don' be dissin' the poets!!!!

[wagtunes]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict ... sh/asshole

[fluffy_little_something]

It is about what people feel when they hear a sound.

If it is about what you feel, why don't you say:

"I feel like X when I hear it."

Rather than:

"It sounds X."

Again, see the entry under "confuse" in the dictionary.

Just because you perceive an object as "X", doesn't make that object "X".

The object in the objective sense has fixed properties that are independent from you, your senses or your observation or very existence.

When you describe things in the subjective sense it is important to make your meaning clear. Simply state "I feel". Everyone will immediately know you are speaking subjectively.

To describe "it sounds X" is nothing more than a lie.

Stop attempting to rationalize it.

Because it is two sides of the same coin. Like with a heater: it is hot and thus makes me feel hot, um, warm that is

If the vast majority of people consider something x, it becomes x in the minds of the people, simply because it no longer matters to them that in reality it is y. When they talk about it, it is x, and it is enough because almost everyone knows what is meant, and the few that don't don't make a difference.

When something sounds x to the majority of people, it is not a lie, but a consensus.

[aciddose]

Hey!!! Don' be dissin' the poets!!!!

Don't be this (points to burrito) in puts? (points to microwave)

[trimph1]

[whyterabbyt]

Associating colors with temperature for instance is very common.

There are also so called loud colors, which obviously associates hearing with seeing.[/code]

Of course those are two mild forms of synesthesia

No, neither are forms of synesthesia, theyre both just terms of speech. Its only synaethesia when it actually provokes a mismatched sensory response in the brain.

People describe a shirt as loud because it attracts the attention like a loud sound attracts attention, not because synaesthesia makes them perceive loudness. Its an analogy.

Temperature is slightly different, but its not synaesthesia. A poker gets described as red-hot because it actually does emit red light when heated, not because synaesthesia causes us to perceive heat as red light. If it was synaesthesia you'd perceive red even when unable to see the heat source. From the real world behaviour of hot objects, its become a set of metaphors, but that's nothing to do with synaesthesia.

[fluffy_little_something]

More importantly, back on topic.

In the sense of "warm"; again, it is possible to "think of the sensation of warmth" when you hear a sound. This isn't typically the meaning conveyed by the word however.

So it should be obvious this is all a ridiculous attempt to justify the use of these terms by outright lying about how they are used.

Nobody means "when I hear the sound it makes me feel warm".
Rarely do they mean (I have never known anyone to mean) "when I hear the sound it reminds me of warmth."

They mean something technical but they lack the ability to describe it.

Actually, yes, that is what happens. A sound gives you feelings. After all we are not data acquisition devices, but human beings. We always feel something when we receive signals of any kind.
That is why most people find certain sounds such as typical Oberheim pads pleasant, warm, or whatever.
Music is made of sounds, and the only reason for making music is to make people feel something.

[aciddose]

If the sound actually triggers other senses this is synesthesia.

No it does not. In the majority of cases such terms are used ("warm") it is neither a description of a sensory perception nor is it an analogy.

If it were a valid use of the term it would make sense. For example an energetic sound increasing heart-rate and blood flow might be described as "warming" (subjective) in the sense that it genuinely did increase the temperature of a person's body.

It would also make sense if it were used to describe properties associated with a device "warming up" although such use would require that the sounds could be "warmed" (subjective) by modification of those properties. In many cases this is the way the term is used, even if the individual is not aware of the etymology of the term.

It does not make any sense to say that a sound is "warm" (objective) because that is impossible.

[wagtunes]

Acid, can I ask you a question? And I mean this in all sincerity.

When you listen to music do you feel anything? Or do you feel as cold and unmoved as the feelings (for lack of a better word) conveyed in your responses to this issue of "warmth" and/or whatever?

I've met some very odd characters in my day and very few people who I wished I hadn't met. But to be quite honest, something about your view of this subject makes me very glad that I will never meet you in real life. Quite honestly, there is something very scary about you that you can't even comprehend that normal "uneducated" people would feel and describe something a certain way even if that description isn't technically accurate.

If we all lived according to your rules, do you have any idea how many uses of our speech would be non existent?

Yeah, very scary indeed.

[fluffy_little_something]

Associating colors with temperature for instance is very common.

There are also so called loud colors, which obviously associates hearing with seeing.[/code]

Of course those are two mild forms of synesthesia

No, neither are forms of synesthesia, theyre both just terms of speech. Its only synaethesia when it actually provokes a mismatched sensory response in the brain.

People describe a shirt as loud because it attracts the attention like a loud sound attracts attention, not because synaesthesia makes them perceive loudness. Its an analogy.

Temperature is slightly different, but its not synaesthesia. A poker gets described as red-hot because it actually does emit red light when heated, not because synaesthesia causes us to perceive heat as red light. If it was synaesthesia you'd perceive red even when unable to see the heat source. From the real world behaviour of hot objects, its become a set of metaphors, but that's nothing to do with synaesthesia.

There was an interesting program on colors on TV a couple of days ago. For instance they explained why red is so important for women, an evolutionary thing going back to gathering when women spent a lot of time judging fruit based on the shade of red.
Our perception of colors is in our genes, so to speak. Red is perceived as a warm color even by people who have no clue of pokers.

[aciddose]

If we all lived according to your rules, do you have any idea how many uses of our speech would be non existent?

Yeah, very scary indeed.

What scares me is the fact you could interpret any of that meaning from what I've said.

None of that was accurate. I didn't mean any of what you've mistakenly interpreted.

I have never once said "nobody should ever use subjective terms or describe their subjective experience or emotions."

Did I say that?