I looked back through HP's Hurricane review last night - admittedly I only skimmed it last week - and I am beginning to see what you all are saying as to the unbridled conviction. Stronger than I thought in toto, and particularly up front in the text. Did anyone notice that the review started out, almost starting out too much, with the "philosophy" angle, as if it was what was being talked about and not the amp?
A theory too much in search of an empiric result?
I told HP about these ideas ten years ago concerning envelopes of dimensional space carrying varying energies, and, hence, experienced by the listener differently in a dynamic sense (and, in conjunction with discontinuousness - lack of "symmetry" as I put it at the time, in print for galley, but strangely not published...), so I know what he is try-ing to get at ten years later. I just wonder whether the observation has more to do with the mind's try-ing rather than what that mind is able to perceive...
So, boys, is that "entertaining" enough?
A theory too much in search of an empiric result?
I told HP about these ideas ten years ago concerning envelopes of dimensional space carrying varying energies, and, hence, experienced by the listener differently in a dynamic sense (and, in conjunction with discontinuousness - lack of "symmetry" as I put it at the time, in print for galley, but strangely not published...), so I know what he is try-ing to get at ten years later. I just wonder whether the observation has more to do with the mind's try-ing rather than what that mind is able to perceive...
So, boys, is that "entertaining" enough?