Steve Eddy,
your viewpoints contain obscurities and inconsistencies, you don´t clearly separate between objective and subjective. The central issue here is that material object characterization by objective methods has no validity for mental representation created according to variable, selective criteria on a cognitive level. Subjective experiences do not necessarily have a (scientifically explainable) external origin conveyed through functional sensory organs. Subjective experiences are not comparable, arguable and to be substantiated.
Perception is not a function of reality. When conscious, perception is informed by concepts. Concepts determine our understanding. We immediately perceive only mind-dependent ideas, while we mediately perceive objects. Also, our senses are unreliable and can easily be confounded.
More generally, the main task of perception is to facilitate survival and reproduction. Knowing the real nature of the world would not provide a benefit as it is far too complicated. For survival, firm and instant decisions based on simplest considerations that are valuable, which is achieved by nonconscious processes.
your viewpoints contain obscurities and inconsistencies, you don´t clearly separate between objective and subjective. The central issue here is that material object characterization by objective methods has no validity for mental representation created according to variable, selective criteria on a cognitive level. Subjective experiences do not necessarily have a (scientifically explainable) external origin conveyed through functional sensory organs. Subjective experiences are not comparable, arguable and to be substantiated.
Perception is not a function of reality. When conscious, perception is informed by concepts. Concepts determine our understanding. We immediately perceive only mind-dependent ideas, while we mediately perceive objects. Also, our senses are unreliable and can easily be confounded.
More generally, the main task of perception is to facilitate survival and reproduction. Knowing the real nature of the world would not provide a benefit as it is far too complicated. For survival, firm and instant decisions based on simplest considerations that are valuable, which is achieved by nonconscious processes.
AVE...
You must not forget that what our senses register is not equal to what we perceive. Once I was almost hit by a bus, but my senses registered the danger and my body reacted before I perceived the danger...
We not only not perceive everything, but we also create fake data to fill up blank spaces that are not supposed to be blank. We won't head the difference between 10 bit DAC, 16 bit DAC and 24 bit DAC. Our mind will adjust itself to eliminate quantization errors. The same goes with photographs: analog photo has resolution between 20 and 50Mpix but in most cases we won't see the difference between analog photograph or digital one made with 5-8Mpix camera...
This makes wire quality and resistance, quality of components (in the same design) or even signal source completely irrelevant as long as we don't know the type of used components, cables and signal sources. Audiovoodoo works because people listen with their wallets, or rather their minds create different perception of sound for different equipment...
You must not forget that what our senses register is not equal to what we perceive. Once I was almost hit by a bus, but my senses registered the danger and my body reacted before I perceived the danger...
We not only not perceive everything, but we also create fake data to fill up blank spaces that are not supposed to be blank. We won't head the difference between 10 bit DAC, 16 bit DAC and 24 bit DAC. Our mind will adjust itself to eliminate quantization errors. The same goes with photographs: analog photo has resolution between 20 and 50Mpix but in most cases we won't see the difference between analog photograph or digital one made with 5-8Mpix camera...
This makes wire quality and resistance, quality of components (in the same design) or even signal source completely irrelevant as long as we don't know the type of used components, cables and signal sources. Audiovoodoo works because people listen with their wallets, or rather their minds create different perception of sound for different equipment...
So I guess you'd agree with the O/P's proposition that high end audio could be just gimmicks. Perhaps these gimmicks are designed to specifically address consumer concerns, though they are actually published by the manufacturers, designers and promoters of high end audio?
There is definitely a knee-jerk reaction from many manufacturers to at least claim that they meet this or that new threat to audio nirvana. They will produce new designs that are greatly over-spec. in some unnecessary areas just in case some rare audio event somehow defies physics and threatens your musical day.
On the other hand, you could say that they are just responding to consumer demand, whatever it is.....albeit a little too pro-actively!
I think the same strategies apply to mass-market audio products but the gimmicks there are promoted as clearly defined features like connectivity to other systems, specifications and functionality, rather than abstract waffling, understandable only to the designer and cogniscenti. Some enthusiasts even see more merit in the subtly written reviews of high-end equipment than the products. 'Could be right there, too.
AVE...
For years I have been dealing with the free energy/perpetuum mobile idiots. They claimed that their devices not only defied the laws of physics but actually raped them. Now I can read any technical gibberish and filter out the bulls**t claims, lies and errors. Like in case of Bybee Quantum Purifier. I've seen similar "devices", used for making sound so good, that you would orgasm by listening to music. Or used to make mains power better for your devices which would reduce electricity bills. Fancy box, odd claims and almost nothing inside. And yet most of people here had to discuss the quantum sound orgasmorator, make tests and experiments and still they don't see the obvious truth: this is a HOAX...
It terrifies me how smart people can be such idiots...
For years I have been dealing with the free energy/perpetuum mobile idiots. They claimed that their devices not only defied the laws of physics but actually raped them. Now I can read any technical gibberish and filter out the bulls**t claims, lies and errors. Like in case of Bybee Quantum Purifier. I've seen similar "devices", used for making sound so good, that you would orgasm by listening to music. Or used to make mains power better for your devices which would reduce electricity bills. Fancy box, odd claims and almost nothing inside. And yet most of people here had to discuss the quantum sound orgasmorator, make tests and experiments and still they don't see the obvious truth: this is a HOAX...
It terrifies me how smart people can be such idiots...
My reply to the original question: Yes, it is! And the whole concept is quite outdated, it relies on the same brain self-deceiving mechanisms as religion.
To further understand the subject I recommend the book: "A Mind Of Its Own, How Your Brain Distors and Deceives" (Norton & Co. 2006) written by Psychologist Cordelia Fine.
We love to think we are always making the right choice, we need much less energy to do things that way, and we get more pleasure in exchange, but all this comes at the expense of ignoring the actual consequences. Skepticism is the hardest way to go but it gives you a more accurate perspective of everything around you.
btw: I'm not just an user, I'm one among the few people that are designing the next generation of pro-audio amplifiers.
To further understand the subject I recommend the book: "A Mind Of Its Own, How Your Brain Distors and Deceives" (Norton & Co. 2006) written by Psychologist Cordelia Fine.
We love to think we are always making the right choice, we need much less energy to do things that way, and we get more pleasure in exchange, but all this comes at the expense of ignoring the actual consequences. Skepticism is the hardest way to go but it gives you a more accurate perspective of everything around you.
btw: I'm not just an user, I'm one among the few people that are designing the next generation of pro-audio amplifiers.
Last edited:
I have to slightly disagree that "hi-end" audio companies do not innovate and that the innovation is coming from the huge companies that mass market.
There is a revolution going on in the audio amplifier industry that is bringing a relatively new technology that is RADICALLY different from the amps of the past. Class D.
The class D amplifier modules that are leading the pack are mostly made by small innovative companies that sell their modules as well as amps, and the amps are not cheap.
It's actually the big mass manufacturers (like Behringer for example) that are using this technology, making wild claims about it and designing "pretty" amps with lots of lights, bells and whistles, even though they had nothing to do with inventing the circuitry or in some cases designing it.
The amps sold by the small companies who are perfecting class D are mostly minimalist, with a volume knob and not much else - no bells and whistles. They also don't make a lot of claims other than saying the amps compare favorably in listening tests, and publishing their specs.
So amplifier thechnology as we know it is in the process of very quickly changing with the arrival of class D and there is indeed a quantum leap occurring in amplifier technology as we write.
Very well put,WuYit, it is a pleasure to see bright and open mind
! The only weak point that i have always seen on this theories is the objectivism, ergo how can be anything truly objective, when all the incoming informations are perceived through subject and therefore distorted by my unique and subjective way of perception and interpretation. How can we find the objectivity (truth) trough our very subjective prisms ? In my opinion the objectivism is not working and the word "objective" should be removed from vocabulary Sorry for my english since i am not native speaker.
I'm also a big fan of that book. In fact Cordelia Fine has a newer book out, though I haven't bought that yet. She's an excellent author.
Here I think you must mean skepticism in its true sense, that is philosophical skepticism, not the kind which is touted nowadays by those who promote science as the only means to valid knowledge.
Hi Eva,
I don't exactly understand the part with self-deceiving mechanism. It sounds to me like "false", but where is the oposit of it, the right, non-deceiving ? To make the word "false" relevant, we need antonymous ergo true way of perception which we don't have. I think that the black/ white concept of true/lie and subjective/objective is way too simple, custom made by us for our also simple survival-oriented perception, along with the other shortucts. I mean that the reality is very complex and the fact that we name part of it means that it exists, in our heads only.
Sorry for my average english, i am maybe not able to express myself precisely as i wish
. The book that you recommended looks interesting, i will read it for sure.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.