"Primarily illusion. The arguments about measuring the wrong things these days are mainly focused on loudspeakers, not electronica."
Well , and I thought that electronica was already perfect in the 80's.
People who have both formats in advanced configuration almost always prefer LP's based on sound and CD based on convenience. Case closed. The source of threads like this is bottom feeders community insecurities.
Well , and I thought that electronica was already perfect in the 80's.
People who have both formats in advanced configuration almost always prefer LP's based on sound and CD based on convenience. Case closed. The source of threads like this is bottom feeders community insecurities.
Is that the fabled Elixir of Audio Ecstasy?
Could be Terry - Tnargs sounds like he has drunk it all though so none left for you or me I'm afraid 😀
@abraxalito, I don't keep such things, but it should be easy to find. Just look for evidence, using controlled tests, that well-performing electronic components cannot be distinguished when using recorded music as a source. It's out there, and it means they were measuring the right things when designing those components.
Oh, I should have clarified, when I refer to 'arguments' I mean in the scientific audio research community, not bulletin boards. 😉
P.S. @jkeny the absolute surety potion and elixer of audio ecstasy is most prevalent in the pubs around Dublin, you won't find it here! But seriously, some people find it extremely galling that there are such things as objective truths in hifi land, they think it should all be "I like x, you like y, let's shake on it and walk around to the pub for another Guinness!". It is a pretty bitter drink 🙂 for them to swallow that their preferences are based on uncontrolled listening tests, so they are invalid and essentially biased, and that some other proper researchers have done all the hard yards, and have come to some pretty solid conclusions that will be COMPLETELY rejected by every tom dick and harry who doesn't 'like' said conclusions. Well that's fine if they want to wade in the shallows, but if they actually want to reach new shores they need to learn to swim.
Oh, I should have clarified, when I refer to 'arguments' I mean in the scientific audio research community, not bulletin boards. 😉
P.S. @jkeny the absolute surety potion and elixer of audio ecstasy is most prevalent in the pubs around Dublin, you won't find it here! But seriously, some people find it extremely galling that there are such things as objective truths in hifi land, they think it should all be "I like x, you like y, let's shake on it and walk around to the pub for another Guinness!". It is a pretty bitter drink 🙂 for them to swallow that their preferences are based on uncontrolled listening tests, so they are invalid and essentially biased, and that some other proper researchers have done all the hard yards, and have come to some pretty solid conclusions that will be COMPLETELY rejected by every tom dick and harry who doesn't 'like' said conclusions. Well that's fine if they want to wade in the shallows, but if they actually want to reach new shores they need to learn to swim.
Last edited:
cannot be distinguished by WHOM ? The primitive herd sample for which todays media caters TV stream of reality shows and zombie movies or maybe puppets masquerading for "sound engineers" ?
OK that's cool, so you won't be attached to claims made in the absence of evidence then 😀
Even better 🙂 But I won't be holding my breath for you to produce it.
Weird Monday.
Both threads (you know the ones) seem to be getting pretty silly. One thing that struck me was the repeated referencing of the McGurk Effect (I don't do Youtube so I didn't see the video. It appears to me not far removed from the principles of ventriloquism.), then this quote, "So its reasonable as a working hypothesis that they do indeed hear what they say they hear. The alternative would be that they're lying and we'd need strong evidence to go with that.", in which the McGurk Effect is completely irrelevant.
Both threads (you know the ones) seem to be getting pretty silly. One thing that struck me was the repeated referencing of the McGurk Effect (I don't do Youtube so I didn't see the video. It appears to me not far removed from the principles of ventriloquism.), then this quote, "So its reasonable as a working hypothesis that they do indeed hear what they say they hear. The alternative would be that they're lying and we'd need strong evidence to go with that.", in which the McGurk Effect is completely irrelevant.
@abraxalito, ha ha, I meant it should be easy for YOU to find! I'm not your dog. If you won't lift a finger to find it, then you don't want it.
Last edited:
😀 I had a hypothesis that that might be the case. But this is science, so the claimant bears responsibility for the evidence, not the skeptic. You had not realised that? 😀
Where does 'what I want' come into play? Again, I was under the impression this was science. Was I mistaken?
@limono, I am referring to controlled listening tests, some with general public, some with audiophiles.
Double blind tests are really quite good at two things. First, showing that vivid and/or enormous differences sometimes expressed by audiophiles really are often minute changes. Second, they are extraordinarily good at creating null results even when audible differences do exist.
Nuff said - you choose not to consider the evidence then you'll never reach nirvana 🙂
No, only seems to be completely irrelevant to you. A crucial difference, one which might change when you consider the evidence.
I only said I didn't do the Youtube thing. Is Youtube your only acceptable source? Which of us then is ignoring evidence?
Ahhh, if I only had a nickel for every ad hominem obfuscation....
No, of course not, its just one suggested source. You are free to find your own sources 🙂
The evidence only points one way here, but you don't like the way the evidence leads....😛
Then you'd never get a dime off me 😉 Just post up the evidence for 'obfuscation' and 'adhominem' please rather than merely claiming it.
That's precisely what I did. (Funny...nirvana doen't feel any different🙂)
This reply is for a sentence that was an integral part of the previous two. Why you chose to separate it and respond as you did I will never know (nor care).
"Nuff said - you choose not to consider the evidence then you'll never reach nirvana"
It's right in front of your face. I can do no more.
Flawed reasoning - if someone says 'if you don't X then you'll not Y' it doesn't follow that 'I did X, therefore Y immediately'. 😀
Well that makes two of us. Next?
I see a claim which is either correct or incorrect. You offered something about ventriloquism which to me sounds a few million miles from the effect itself. So if you have considered the evidence, I'll gladly retract my claim. What did you find?
Well, I know a little about the principles of ventriloquism (PV), and I know a little about the McGurk Effect (ME). Are we on equal ground?
"A few million miles from the effect" I don't think is reasonable. The ME and PV both involve an illusion based on sight and sound. Are more details necessary?
Sure they are if you're interested in learning an important point about sound from the ME. So please do continue... 🙂
To help you here, do please explain what you mean when you use the term 'illusion' - its germane.
What I mean by illusion is simply the common definition of "a trick of the senses where something appears to be something it is not".
The ME experiment as I understand it used video of a speech pattern overdubbed with a different sound. The respondents often heard a third different sound. In ventriloquism, the ventriloquist can't easily make sounds that require the lips to meet - b, m, p, etc. So a different sound is substituted. Maybe a d, n, k, or t sound is used instead. The audience doesn't realize the difference, in large part due to their expectations and past experience. They think they hear the b, m, p consonant.
My hypothesis for the third sound in the ME is that the visual evidence doesn't match the aural evidence, so the (confused) brain is more easily fooled into thinking a third option is most probable.
The ME experiment as I understand it used video of a speech pattern overdubbed with a different sound. The respondents often heard a third different sound. In ventriloquism, the ventriloquist can't easily make sounds that require the lips to meet - b, m, p, etc. So a different sound is substituted. Maybe a d, n, k, or t sound is used instead. The audience doesn't realize the difference, in large part due to their expectations and past experience. They think they hear the b, m, p consonant.
My hypothesis for the third sound in the ME is that the visual evidence doesn't match the aural evidence, so the (confused) brain is more easily fooled into thinking a third option is most probable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.