Wow this thread moves fast...
appears cbdb and abraxalito are just looking at different sides of the same coin. 😉
on the one hand there is the physical reality of the sound that existed, spoken or transmitted. However it is heard by the receiver, does not that become "what was heard" -- oh, my head hurts 😀
“Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you.” – Douglas Adams
this whole thread on perception is interesting, and a bit funny as well. such deep subjects; human cognition, philosophy of perception, psychoacoustics. It is indeed interesting discussion; surely it is the final and less quantifiable stage in the recording and reproduction stage. Affected by all things in-between... 😱
appears cbdb and abraxalito are just looking at different sides of the same coin. 😉
on the one hand there is the physical reality of the sound that existed, spoken or transmitted. However it is heard by the receiver, does not that become "what was heard" -- oh, my head hurts 😀
“Everything you see or hear or experience in any way at all is specific to you. You create a universe by perceiving it, so everything in the universe you perceive is specific to you.” – Douglas Adams
this whole thread on perception is interesting, and a bit funny as well. such deep subjects; human cognition, philosophy of perception, psychoacoustics. It is indeed interesting discussion; surely it is the final and less quantifiable stage in the recording and reproduction stage. Affected by all things in-between... 😱
I like it. The recording is great quality. The music is good if you like acoustic guitar and voice. (they have some other stuff as well, IIRC)
Ah, perceptual researchers do not generally adopt such a definition where it includes 'it is not'. Also 'trickery' is what's occurring all the time just we do not notice it so the word itself is inappropriate. The stability of the world we see is an illusion given what we know about eye saccades for example. The eye's blind spot is another - we're blind to what we're blind to. Trickery is not really the right word.
Not in the version I saw on YouTube. There was one vibrational stimulus and there were two audible sounds depending on whether the vibrational stimulus was accompanied by the visual stimulus, or not.
How do you know they don't hear those consonant sounds rather than just 'think they hear' them?
But no evidence for any 'third sound' in what I've found on the ME.
it is (or seems) akin to magic. a "slight of hand". The senses are often easily easily tricked. Though I'm not sure, my understanding is that hearing is normally less easily tricked. combinations of sense can do strange things...
you've likely heard of the gorilla basketball case:
"If you're intensely watching a ball game, and a gorilla walks onto the court, you'd notice him ... right? Believe it or not, there's actually a 50 percent chance you'd miss him entirely." - from an NPR story on the study
the video's - give some of them a shot if you have not
That would be just another 'trick' of perception 😀
To help with the headaches that commonly occur when considering this, its first important to adopt the appropriate nomenclature. In other words the wrong vocab tends to make things more head-spinning than they need to be. First there are no sounds in physical reality, merely vibrations.
DNA says it all succinctly. Pretty cool frood who certainly knows where his towel is. Or rather, knew 😛
Perceptual researchers can have their terms, and I can have mine. This quote falls in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. The word may be inappropriate for you. To me it is not.
Unsure of this usage of "stability" (and especially "saccades"). But otherwise, I simply do not agree. Reality existed before I came along, and will continue after I leave.
And how do you know there was vibrational stimulus? just kidding..🙂
OK there is another level to the ME with a third sensory stimulation. I won't say the experiments were useless, but were there any reasonable breakthroughs in knowledge as a result?
If it was just an exercise in nullifying the senses, I may have alluded to this already. Just because my senses can be fooled does not mean they cannot be used to formulate reality as it exists. And I think for myself and don't subjugate my brain for another's on a whim. Not scientists, PhD's, Congressmen, experts, clergy, etc.
Because the identifying sound wave pattern (the air pressure fluctuation, if you insist) for those consonants didn't exist. An audience member may have thought he was hearing a Bach sonata. It doesn't change the reality. BTW, and will not involve myself in "trees falling in the forest" nonsense.
Hard to keep up to this!
If your a therapist and you accept it as real then you need a therapist. You accept that the patient thinks its real, but thats where it ends. Man this is getting ridiculous. I've made my point. I've got better things to do than argue for arguements sake. If someone comes up with a real arguement, then I may reply.
If your a therapist and you accept it as real then you need a therapist. You accept that the patient thinks its real, but thats where it ends. Man this is getting ridiculous. I've made my point. I've got better things to do than argue for arguements sake. If someone comes up with a real arguement, then I may reply.
Yes, but the problem is we share that universe with others. The curse of social beings! Doooh, now I'm doing it.
Lets sum up by " if a tree falls in the forest..." blah blah blah goodbye.
Last edited:
Fair enough - trees falling in the forest have fallen since before you came along and will continue to fall once you've left. Should you have any evidence/reasoning to back up your claim of 'nonsense' we can rekindle the conversation.
Fascinating claim - coming as it does from a non-therapist 😛 My sig seems to apply most appositely 😀
Yes indeed. And they make those vibrations when they fall. You've subtly given the reasoning and evidence.
It won't show up in THD or frequency response, that much I can tell. But I don't care about jitter. It is a boring subject.
If people think that the total eradication of jitter from CD will make it sound like a good LP then I'd suggest them to look closer into the workings of both.
Not frequency response. THD? Well, jitter would add distortion, but it would not be harmonic. (not necessarily related to the fundamental) ??
I think I recall there being some audio samples that presumably demonstrated the effect of jitter on sound. I don't recall now where...
I've always wondered... given a reasonably good, low jitter, high quality D to A (getting the basics right so to speak) would a "good" digital filter response sound "better" or more natural (this has been a popular focus of late, that seems to have some merit)
and given that, would then running it through a very tiny reverb tank make it sound more like LP? (and maybe transformer coupled...) I suppose this goes back to the point, as discussed earlier, or *understanding* the distortions in LP production and playback.
It follows though that this also requires understanding the distortions in CD production and playback... (...and their perceptions 🙄 )
That would require some very complex modelling.
Consider this analogy:
You are in a tiny room, singing into a megaphone. The room is connected, through an open door, to a very very long corridor. This corridor is, at the other end, connected to a multitude of large and small halls and rooms, at different floors. Some doors are open, some are shut, but all of these doors are pretty flimsy and pass sound more or less unattenuated. The furnishings in the rooms differ, but generally they have hard and reflective walls.
Some corridors return to your tiny room. And below it is another room, where some machinery is chuffing away.
What would a microphone in your room hear?
Well, it certainly works for me, and for a lot of other people I know. To me it sounds more like very good tape (not vinyl). But you should not take my word for it, because the experts here will tell you that hearing can never be trusted. Just trust the specs and forget what you hear, it's wrong anyway. 😛
Oh, BTW - I'm in London this week - so may not post much. At least I think I am in London. But the senses are not to be trusted, so I could be in Bombay. We'll see how the curry is tonight.
As far as my understanding goes, the only cause for audible jitter could be deviations in the timing system, and the only cause for that could be a quartz crystal that doesn't quite behave like quartz crystal. I can imagine a timing system for a DAC not based on a quartz crystal, e.g. an op amp based oscilator spinning at 44.1 Khz, which might cause issues with jitter.
It would be nice to construct a DAC with such a lousy timing system, just to see above which threshold that would produce measurable and/or audible artifacts.
After I conceptionalized this, I first Googled a bit to see if that has been done already. And ever since our dikes don't need our thumbs anymore, the Dutch have been in the forefront of high end electronics, so a fellow countryman was ahead of me: Jitter. You will have to learn Dutch to understand, but for those reaching for the profoundest knowledge audiowise, that would be a sound investment anyways.
😀
I think we can move on from those nitpicks for now 😉
or let's try that as :"What would a microphone in your room 'hear'?*"
*"hear" being the lay word, and easier description for detecting and transducing vibrations of air within the frequency range of interest for the human auditory range. (and possibly recording them to a storage media for later reproduction)
really that's just a lot harder to write 😛
- Status
- Not open for further replies.