Rebecca Hamm: http://rebeccahamm.net/
Often her content is still taking over what she calls "human constructs.
What Could be more satisfying than that, seeing nature recovered from humans?
---------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------
The Grand Masters of Esotericism (very rare, indeed, amid a sea of \u200b\u200bcharlatans ... well that's good, because it is required the skills of discernment) of all ages have spent some time trying to understand the more "famous phrase:" Nature Notes ".
The observation of nature is through the senses.
Man did not have other means to interact, per indagare, per conoscere...
Gli input sensoriali vengono poi elaborati dal cervello.
Quindici o venti anni or sono (non saprei più indicare precisamente quanto tempo sia passato, chiaramente...), ricordo di aver intrapreso una discussione con uno di quegli amici "artisti" (di cui sopra parlavo).
Succedeva spesso al "piccolo caffè" (e succede ancora), denominato il "caffè degli artisti" (e per questo magari "evitato" da una certa "cerchia", che preferisce gli altri bar, più "classici", più largi, magari anche molto più "chic" o "trendy").
Si parlava di colori.
Ed io, fiero, sfoggiavo l'atteggiamento "tecnicista" (simile a quello che si osserva sovente nell'ambito hi-fi, ieri come oggi).
"I colori non esistono", dicevo...
Sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Lunghezza d'onda, frequenza...
L'uomo le traduce e le vede come colori, ma è un artifizio, un inganno.
La realtà, la fisica, dicono che sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Perfettamente misurabili. Non si discute.
Il resto è falsità, inganno, suggestione, interpetazione...
"Pipino dopo la valle" mi rispose:
"non solo i colori esistono, ma possiamo anche miscelarli, per ottenere tonalità e sfumature praticamente infinite".
A quel punto mi fu chiaro che non avesse capito.
Parlavo di scienza, io...di fisica!!!
E quello invece si raffigurava i suoi bei tubetti di colori, per dipingere.
Era ovvio che avesse torto. Magari per ingoranza o per "deformazione professionale".
Così oggi ragionano certi nostri scienziati dell'hi-fi.
Con la stessa "certezza scientifica" che avevo io a venti anni.
Fortunatamente c'è stata evoluzione, in me...
Ripensandoci oggi, è chiaro che "Pipino dopo la valle" non avesse concezione di alcune "certezze" elementari della realtà fisica.
Però...
...però questo non inficiava minimamente il fatto che avesse ragione.
Cosciente o meno che fosse, di certi reasoning.
The only reality that man can know is that due to information arriving from the senses and their subsequent processing in the brain.
The mere physical reality, with the spectrum of "visible" or "invisible", it is not known (and can not be) as such.
The only "real" reality (that is knowable, "liveable", creator of emotions and reactions) is full of colors.
When my son takes me a remote control, because it does not work, one of the first things I check is the emission from the LEDs.
infrared LED ... we can not see them.
I have a digital camera sempre a portata di mano. La accendo e...miracolo!
Nel display LCD si vede il led, che si accende.
La fotocamera è sensibile anche all'infrarosso.
Si, ma..."che colore è" l'infrarosso?
Il display lo mostra bianco.
Perchè proprio bianco?
Per la realtà fisica (quella che non conosciamo e non possiamo conoscere) quella radiazione non è così dissimile da quella della cosiddetta luce visibile.
Per l'uomo, invece, c'è una differenza sostanziale.
A parte questo, quale realtà andrà a tentare di rappresentare (a mo' di "icona", o fac-simile, o "quel che volete voi") quella fotocamera, dal momento that is sensitive to radiation us "foreign" (at least in visual perception)?
the days gone by, the photographic technique could boast black and white films with different chromatic sensitivity.
orthochromatic, panchromatic ...
Perhaps some of them you could see some "missing"?
Some of them have never been considered less "hi-fi?
Yet one of those films is missing a large chunk of spectrum "physical" spectrum ... The other counts
what should not ...
"Frequency" ... same can be said that our "scientists" (from doing "century"). They
the "measure" and want "complete" (rispetto a cosa? alla sensazione umana che gli strumenti di misura non conoscono?) e "lineare" (de che??).
La vogliono "estesa".
Ritenendola "condicio sine qua non" per un ascolto (termine con il quale si "confondono", rispetto alla riproduzione della musica ed alla sensazione) "realistico".
Un po' come per la presunta dinamica, o la "pressione", realistica...
Realistico...
Per soddisfare una realtà fisica che non conosciamo?
(Cosa ci importa degli aspetti estranei, perciò inutili?)
Piuttosto che indagare le molteplici impicazioni dell'unica realtà conosciuta, che è quella sensoriale, emozionale ecc. ?
La realtà che conosciamo è molto diversa da quella fisica...
Bisogna studiare.
Molto.
Non lo fanno?
Va bene!
Mi rendo sempre più conto che esiste una sorta di profonda confusione, ad ogni minimo accenno a “certe” questioni.
Quando si dice che certe misure non possono essere utili, data la presenza dell'uomo nel sistema, molti interpretano questa affermazione come se fosse un tentativo di "opporsi" alla tecnologia, alla scienza.
Loro si ritengono "scienziati", difensori della tecnologia e del progresso ed "accusano" di anti-scientificità, di misticismo, di filosofia chi asserisce che certe measures are unnecessary.
In reality, the true scientist is one that understands the nature of the various phenomena and make the analysis thereof.
Let me explain: Many are accustomed to seeing "calculations" and "measures", for example in the design and construction of a building, and then merge that application with others.
I tend to think that the "modus operandi" of science, specifically in that area (like many others) is the universal method of science.
Why, however, is not?
We have said that playing music involves the human senses. The music was created and exists for man.
In a room where a stereo is turned on and a lamp, but there is no human presence, there're no music and colors.
since these terms, these feelings are related to humans, are created within man, his brain.
We also said that the physical reality (which is dealt with the well-known physical laws) is unknown to us, at least "directly".
For man knows only the reality, as it is presented by its meaning and its related mental processing of the particular information (sensory).
The study of physical reality has been made over the centuries, through the investigations often external to man.
A microscope as an oscilloscope, for example, are "hearing".
They can study what man can not know through their senses, and here, for example, the study of materials (see "maybe we the percentage of carbon in the steel through the eyes, or fingertips or nose?) and everything else.
This allows us to know and to act in the physical world and so far I hope that we agree.
To build a house should be calculated and measures, but one of the purposes of that structure will be to try to remain standing.
E "try" to do so is when people are present, and when it is not.
is different speech use measurements and calculations when the final goal returns as inherent in man himself.
Whether it's style (kitchen) of image or music (or whatever) does not matter, it's back to a sensory context, that is, in fact perceived and interpreted by the man who is different from physical reality.
It makes perfect sense to study the physical reality of sound or light, to know her.
Just as it is foolish to believe that physical reality and perceived reality coincide.
And this is rather what I think unfortunately our nefarious techniques (careful, not scientists ... technically).
If you are not able to do this elementary distinction, what do we expect?
you see them run with the "sound level" you see them published curves.
good exercise, exercise ... I would say that applies to that is: an attempt to indicate the physical reality, however, has nothing to do with the perceived reality.
Those are frequencies, the perceived reality is music.
should agree that to have any claim to take care of music playback, one can not ignore the study of the senses, the development of the brain, how music is created within the human feeling and so on. etc..
We continue to talk instead of decibels, the frequency of physical reality, and there's also the claim (Often expressed in an arrogant manner) to be on the side of science. Ever seen a painter
measure the wavelength of its color before painting.
Neither the "forgers" or enthusiasts to "play" any work.
decided to offer ...
Blue relaxes, excites the red, green is calm ...
Paint in blue or green bedroom.
can explain with steps? We believe that it is unscientific
perhaps that the shops are full of colored lamps, complete with instructions on their effects? Turns
with sound level meter, I said.
Although aware that the perceived intensity has no correlation with the level pressure measured at a point arbitrarily, at any given time, in a given place. Can
perhaps the man to say "there, at that point, there are 123 dB?"
the morning the sound of an alarm can seem deafening.
the evening a concert can be enjoyable.
The same music is composed, is designed to create feelings of "strength" or "whisper".
A melody may appear dynamically growing upward.
Yet the sound level meter is not. When the Korean
school teaches children the art of music, I noticed that the piano is often referred to as "strong" sound serious, and as a "floor" a loud sound.
In fact, the piano makes this impression, whereas a violin makes the opposite effect (some acute are perceived as "exuberant") as well as a flute.
All measurements, indeed, would have major problems groped to reproduce the physical sound (given the variables involved), and can only serve the purpose of study of that area.
have nothing to do with perception and music.
I'm surprised that this simple assumption of science, is not included.
I marvel even more that almost no one takes the trouble to study this world of perception, that is the only real area that interests us, then apply principles.
The few times he writes, "our brave men" lead to fierce debate in an effort to minimize or to flaunt knowledge on the matter, citing "this" or the "text" ... Things
write notes ....
"cocktail party", "noise contours", Fourier and who has me on and so forth.
But then prove not to treasure even the little that quote.
are back in fact a great hurry (and as if nothing had happened), a (s) discuss with the decibels, with the "curve" and everything else. Never seen so much hypocrisy ...
masking, this (un) known
... Already this would be enough to understand the immense difference between the physical sound and music perceived el'inesistenza of correct relations between the two.
woooooofer The 48-inch down to 12Hz ...
They say the measures!
And all the "damage" that is? There
finally be noted that speakers are accustomed to one hundred years much of humanity.
passing cars because they feel that they go to a "reaction" of woofer?
is also a cultural issue now.
If your company offers this model, it is clear that it becomes the norm!
We have become accustomed to the sound of the speaker.
We are used to lower stomach, the concerts in the square at full volume ... There
who leaves the cinema (as was mentioned) with a huge satisfaction. Citing
, once again, the example of the glass breaking, I wonder, "but it really makes the earthquake (in the human reality, the only known because the only perceived) that a glass is broken?" Yet almost
no one comes to mind this simple objection.
issues now have become "disconnected". Here are some
explained stereo systems, which are pleasing to molti.Va good too, but I will not be said that this "system" has something to do with the music.
Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)
0 comments:
Post a Comment