The term 'stationary' has been used in many different ways in different contexts. Mathematically it well defined term in the field of statistics.
However, humans use words and understand the meaning of words in significant part from the written or spoken context surrounding those words. Thus, sometimes Scott Wurcer has used the word stationary in a context where the genius might insist (to anyone except Scott) that the proper in term that context should be 'non-time invariant.' If the targeted person is unliked, then the terms BS and snake oil will likely be added to the scolding, possibly peppered with veiled suggestions of fraud.
Last edited:
@peufeu
Something is moving.
Open minds at work.
That's a good thing since I wouldn't replace my brain with an AP tool and torture is not a good practice.
@Markw4
When someone even manages to cheat himself as the Lord of Measurements did for 21 years, it is normal for him to see fraud all over the place.
Something is moving.
Open minds at work.
That's a good thing since I wouldn't replace my brain with an AP tool and torture is not a good practice.
@Markw4
When someone even manages to cheat himself as the Lord of Measurements did for 21 years, it is normal for him to see fraud all over the place.
The point I made was to have a hearing illusion, somebody must hear something. There would be no illusion if he hears nothing. Since it was repeatedly stated that a sound is measurable if a human can hear it then there should be something shown by the measurement.
Do you approve that asking about measurement of that something deserves getting crapped out?
Any basic technical analysis points exactly to the opposite. I think you are just longing for the old ages
//
In fact, before reading krivium's post, I was about to write an almost identical response.
Although I read to my great surprise that the "loudness race" started already in the jukebox ara, it was wrt vinyl less pronounced when longplay vinyl records became the dominant format.
As krivium already said, the physical constraints do not allow to cramp everything in the same way it became possible with CDs. Be it for tracking reasons or due to the wanted "longplay time" .
Conservative calculations for the available dynamic range in analog records and CDs from the beginning gave roughly 50- 55 dB for vinyl and CD as usuable system dynamic range, but sureley not used in "normal" releases.
Some studies were done about reactions to compressed and super-compressed music both for professionals and consumers and afair the results did not hint for an impression of more "room sound" in the case of compressed material. But I'll check it again, or maybe we misunderstood your point`?!
peufeu,
Right! I meant to say "steady state", "steady" alone is wrong. Steady-state model and state-space model (such as the Fourier transform).
Whatever they are called, mathematical representations use logical constants and are deterministic.
There are more contexts than words, words (can) have different meaning in different contexts.
The term steady-state representation involves a set of definitions and rules.
Last edited:
I take that as acknowledgement that you've now understand the problem with your unchecked premises.
Your problem in confusing "Houdini's tricks" and something like virtual sound sources is a bit disturbing. Unfortunately gerhard's mentioning of he McGurk effect is based on the same confusion, as there are very different mechanisms at work.
The McGurk effect is triggered by contradicting information from different senses, while the perception of a virtual sound source is not.
It is possible for humans to avoid the "McGurk" , means to learn it (the experimental results I've already quoted in the past) while none of us could do the same with virtual sound sources.
It doesn't matter if listening "sighted" or under "blinded" the perception of the virtual sound source simply remains.
There will be an impression of slight elevation at the frontal center position when moving the virtual sound source over the basis from right to left or vice versa. Therefore the statement about the "realness", humans simply can't detect a difference between a real sound source and a virtual sound source as numerous localisation studies have shown.
It is ( for whatever reason) a hard wired feature of our hearing sense.
It don't have to be "cheating oneself". We have done a lot of experiments during the last 30 years and I was always surprised by the intersubject differences, not only wrt their listening abilities but wrt their personal ratings of importance as well.
Jacob, you gave too much credit to the nekul′turnyj PhD. The way I see it is that wiring of his brain leans to the direction of rainman, a savant. Works great on some subjects such as core EE stuff but really weak on others such as culture. You'd need a miracle or a rewiring of his brain to let him grasp psychoacoustics.
I fail to understand how McGurk has anything to do with the topic. I have not invoked anything like that, and I still don't understand how the auditive perception must have anything to do with reality, being anything else but yet another illusion.
Stay disturbed.
Eyes are pre-wired, but is sound localization innate? Or do we learn to locate sounds by seeing where they come from?
Again:
It is necessary to differentiate between the autonomic unconscious and the nonautonomic conscious nervous systems. What sense perception and consciousness have in common is unreliability, creating a temporary, selective, shifting internal image of reality that cannot be rendered distinct from emotion, volition, previous experience, preconceptions, beliefs, personal, social, cultural and hystorical influences by any means.
Perception serves the egocentric, self-regulatory biological regime. Perception is not aimed at knowing the material world, but translating it into superficial sensations. Perception is primordial, instinctive, unconscious, nonconceptual, passive, timeless, direct, impersonal and triggers involuntary, uncontrollable reactions. Perception does not care with quiddity and does not afford content nor demonstration. Matter has no form but content. Sense qualities are deliverances of perception through convoluted neurophysiological activities, supplying the impression of space, form, movement, sound, color, smell, taste, touch to assist orientation in the environment. Sense qualities are heterogeneous and indivisible (immeasurable), have no physical existence, but cognitive existence.
Properties are inherent in qualities. Whatever is known is known by its properties. Knowledge proceeds from sense qualities through the action of intellect (consciousness). Only what is perceived and has become an object of the intellect is knowable, definable, representable and interpretable. Anything to be demonstrable must have a definition. A definition is a halting endeavour to capture a notion. Definition enfolds formality, generality, repeatabilty, idealization, incompleteness. Everything that is defined has the formality of being communicable thereby common to many things. This precludes particularity to be sayable and definable. Anything that is mutable is not definable. Entities can only be defined by their components, those that are not composed of parts (i. e. idea, concept, axiom, notion, unity, quality, quantity, relation, condition, state, particularity, identity, property, cause, action, position, time, state, whole, element, fact, number, variable, point, line, plane, position, set...) are semantic notions. Only subordinates of a generic property can be predicated. Structureless entities are indeterminate, unconceptualizable, unformalizable, unrelatable, undemonstrable, unanalyzable, uncharacterizable, and can only have hypostatized properties.
Nearly all of the above was specified, setting the boundary of expressibility by Aristotle, the brightest shining human mind, two thousand four hundred years ago.
It is necessary to differentiate between the autonomic unconscious and the nonautonomic conscious nervous systems. What sense perception and consciousness have in common is unreliability, creating a temporary, selective, shifting internal image of reality that cannot be rendered distinct from emotion, volition, previous experience, preconceptions, beliefs, personal, social, cultural and hystorical influences by any means.
Perception serves the egocentric, self-regulatory biological regime. Perception is not aimed at knowing the material world, but translating it into superficial sensations. Perception is primordial, instinctive, unconscious, nonconceptual, passive, timeless, direct, impersonal and triggers involuntary, uncontrollable reactions. Perception does not care with quiddity and does not afford content nor demonstration. Matter has no form but content. Sense qualities are deliverances of perception through convoluted neurophysiological activities, supplying the impression of space, form, movement, sound, color, smell, taste, touch to assist orientation in the environment. Sense qualities are heterogeneous and indivisible (immeasurable), have no physical existence, but cognitive existence.
Properties are inherent in qualities. Whatever is known is known by its properties. Knowledge proceeds from sense qualities through the action of intellect (consciousness). Only what is perceived and has become an object of the intellect is knowable, definable, representable and interpretable. Anything to be demonstrable must have a definition. A definition is a halting endeavour to capture a notion. Definition enfolds formality, generality, repeatabilty, idealization, incompleteness. Everything that is defined has the formality of being communicable thereby common to many things. This precludes particularity to be sayable and definable. Anything that is mutable is not definable. Entities can only be defined by their components, those that are not composed of parts (i. e. idea, concept, axiom, notion, unity, quality, quantity, relation, condition, state, particularity, identity, property, cause, action, position, time, state, whole, element, fact, number, variable, point, line, plane, position, set...) are semantic notions. Only subordinates of a generic property can be predicated. Structureless entities are indeterminate, unconceptualizable, unformalizable, unrelatable, undemonstrable, unanalyzable, uncharacterizable, and can only have hypostatized properties.
Nearly all of the above was specified, setting the boundary of expressibility by Aristotle, the brightest shining human mind, two thousand four hundred years ago.
Yes abraxalito, I got that. However there was also the idea that a sine wave did not exercise the amplifier and I wanted to illustrate that the sine is actually a complex thing. It does challenge a circuit about as much as music within the pass band of the circuit.
The important thing to understand is that a musical passage isn't more difficult for an amplifier to process than a sine wave or two together to make up the IMD tests. But anomalies from the amp can "hide" in the collection of signals that make up a musical passage.
Its another myth that should die.
-Chris
The important thing to understand is that a musical passage isn't more difficult for an amplifier to process than a sine wave or two together to make up the IMD tests. But anomalies from the amp can "hide" in the collection of signals that make up a musical passage.
Its another myth that should die.
-Chris
Chris,
Nobody is disputing the theory. Some professional amp designers don't believe sine waves alone are sufficient. They believe amps are at least slightly nonlinear and time variant in a way that sine waves may not clearly show, and they think that needs to be evaluated too.
Nobody is disputing the theory. Some professional amp designers don't believe sine waves alone are sufficient. They believe amps are at least slightly nonlinear and time variant in a way that sine waves may not clearly show, and they think that needs to be evaluated too.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.