Very good Steve! I think part of the trick comes from the fact that the A and B are in opposite colors, but it is not the only thing of course.
Good illustration.
At our last AES NL section meeting we had organised a presentation about audible illusions, hilarious what you can people make believe by just manipulating sound! The one I liked most was the headphone listening to alternating tones, hearing the high tones at the left ear and the low notes at the right ear. Now the clincher: if you swap your headphone around, you STILL hear the high notes left and low notes right! And to add insult to injury: if you are left-handed, you most probably would hear the whole thing just the other way around!
jan
Attachments
![graysquares[1].jpg](/community/data/attachments/327/327714-9d74a0af8257cda3e51d2c01dfb8bdcc.jpg)
Last edited:
Of course, that wasn't the best choice of a phrase, because underlying the ritualistic ceremonies was a real, initial behaviour, or phenomenon: the introduction of "goodies" via accidental contact with more advanced societies ...
And so it goes for many tweaks - there is something 'real' there, but it is not properly or fully understood, hence the outlandish variations of methods seeking to encourage "right" behaviour of audio systems...
Huuh??! I did say "logical, rational" - and I meant that, I'm not talking pixie dust linkages ...
The thing is, that the 'experts' can get it right - I've experienced at least 2 situations where PA systems have been set up to a level where the sound was as good as I could have wished it to be. Which means, at least a few know what they're doing, or at least they can fluke it now and again. And the first time this happened was 25 years ago ...!!
Which means, there ultimately is no excuse for all the other times I've had to put up with shocking or mediocre quality in amplified sound, including, and sometimes especially in audio shop showrooms, and in people's homes ...
I believe the illustration above also has something to do with the way we process shadows:
Do we perceive reality? The checker shadow illusion. Why Evolution Is True
that's why if your merging photos its critical to get the shadows correct.
There have been some good programs on Discovery and Nat Geo on how we perceive our world. That's why if I'm taking a photograph I will use my subjective side, its an image an impression I want to create, when I am investigating some audio perceived problem though I use my objective side to back up or NOT, what I subjectively perceive, cos you cant trust your perceptions alone.
And short term memory is shown to be quite unreliable in these programs, food for thought.
Do we perceive reality? The checker shadow illusion. Why Evolution Is True
that's why if your merging photos its critical to get the shadows correct.
There have been some good programs on Discovery and Nat Geo on how we perceive our world. That's why if I'm taking a photograph I will use my subjective side, its an image an impression I want to create, when I am investigating some audio perceived problem though I use my objective side to back up or NOT, what I subjectively perceive, cos you cant trust your perceptions alone.
And short term memory is shown to be quite unreliable in these programs, food for thought.
When editing a photo I'm going to share or print I want to be sure my monitor is calibrated though otherwise the photo I print looks nothing like the image on the screen ....
Yes, both my monitor and printers are calibrated, I meant the actual taking of the photo, and the manipulation. The camera, monitor, tripod, printer are tools to allow me create a subjective image. My tools have to work to the best of their ability, that's why I set colours etc with a spyder, and not by eye.
Is it, now? Isn't the reason that it cannot repeatable and reliable be shown, that there is nothing 'real' there.
jan
So what? YOU liked it, how on earth do you conclude from that that it was 'setup right' - whatever THAT means?
Ohh I get it, 'setup right' means 'I like it'. Yeah, that's a great help for the rest of us.
jan
THEY make the claim, would it not be reasonable for THEM to provide proof?
Especially if it is an extraordinary claim, which as I'm sure you know would take an extraordinary proof before people would even turn their heads.
What is claimed without proof can be rejected without proof.
jan
Here's the requested data:
Materials: CD, SaCo magnet (Magnetic Sales RE2812832), Force gauge (Mark 10) on test stand.
Procedure: The CD was attached to the hook of the force gauge hanging vertically. The weight was noted. The gauge was then put in "peak hold" mode. The magnet was brought within 1 mm of the edge. It was also brought within 1 mm of the front and reverse side. As a control, the experiment was repeated with a similar size of non-magnetic material substituted for the magnet. For a positive control, the front and back sides of the CD were physically touched with a feather, taking care to only brush the CD lightly with the soft portions.
Results: The CD weighed 14.748 g. Near approach with the magnet and the control material showed no change in the weight, irrespective of angle. A feather touch caused the force reading to peak at 14.757 g.
Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
Materials: CD, SaCo magnet (Magnetic Sales RE2812832), Force gauge (Mark 10) on test stand.
Procedure: The CD was attached to the hook of the force gauge hanging vertically. The weight was noted. The gauge was then put in "peak hold" mode. The magnet was brought within 1 mm of the edge. It was also brought within 1 mm of the front and reverse side. As a control, the experiment was repeated with a similar size of non-magnetic material substituted for the magnet. For a positive control, the front and back sides of the CD were physically touched with a feather, taking care to only brush the CD lightly with the soft portions.
Results: The CD weighed 14.748 g. Near approach with the magnet and the control material showed no change in the weight, irrespective of angle. A feather touch caused the force reading to peak at 14.757 g.
Conclusion: Feathers may have an effect on sound.
Are we talking of a specific tweak here?
Edit: Also, if your new car makes a funny noise at times, and you take it to the dealer he's justified in stating that unless it can repeatably and reliably shown to occur that there is no onus on them to do anything about it?
Last edited:
How do you suggest we communicate that the sound from a particular audio system we experience is of a certain quality - should everyone carry around a full suite of measurement gear at all times and spend significant time taking comprehensive readings, to be posted as 'evidence' that the sound they heard was up to scratch?
What is it?
Is it a “reasoning denial” attack?
Is it a “f*** reasoning” crisis period?
Is it “I haven’t had my pills lately” symptom?
Oh no!
Plus, jacco mentioned feathers a few days ago.
George
Uhhh... we don't need to carry anything along. But there's measurements and controlled testing that gives you a reasonable certainty that what is generally regarded as 'good' will be considred 'good' by most people.
Of course these things are not necessary for you or for me to enjoy music from whatever system we fancy.
But once you want to convince others, like in trying to sell stuff, that what YOU have is 'good' not just for you but for most folk, you need some sort of measurement or controlled listening test.
jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.