poobah said:
I completely agree that if THD is the wrong measurement, which it probably is---or, better, is one probably one of a handful of relevant measures, not all of which are presently known---we must look elsewhere, which would mean to forge new ground, which gets you back to speculating in the series hear-speculate-determine&test. So I'm not jumped on as a moron, allow me to state my assumption that that series does not state a lockstep linear series of investigation, but folds back onto itself such that hearing determines speculation determines testing determines speculation etc.
poobah said:
Yes. Because until you control for known phenomena with regard to subjective perception, those elements will always remain as an ambiguity and you've not got anywhere.
But speculation is not an end in itself. Unless all you're interested in is showing off for the girls or something.
Ok. But if the reality is that none of this is actually audible in the first place, what's the poing?
And it just might be real. I have never claimed that it is not. My point is that you're not truly going to know that until you first establish actual audibility. Otherwise, ambiguity will remain and you're really no farther down the road than when you started.
se
serengetiplains said:
I would say you first have to perceive something.
I would say then you determine whether the perception was due to something actually heard or something merely perceived. In other words, establish actual audibility.
Then you start correlating measurements, and then you may ultmately end up discovering causation. Don't forget, correlation and causation are not one and the same.
I define hearing as perception as a result of actual audibility as opposed to perception that may be due to other, non-related causes.
se
But they are a bear to install!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.