Unfortunately humans are mostly visual creatures and the process of hearing involves ear, brain and eyes.
Our brains are wired that in case of doubt or uncertainty the brain always sides with the eyes and overrules the input from the ears.
Which yet again brings up the McGurk effect as a suitable demonstration of that overruling at work.
This comes down to a basic misinterpretation of Enlish, deliberate or otherwise.
Everyone hears what they hear, just as they eat what they eat. Read this statement again and see if it sinks in.
People who hear ringing in their ears from tinnintus, or a moving train from a stereo recording hear exactly that: not a foghorn or a dog barking. It doesn't matter whether the source of a sound is internal or external, from your ears or from your eyes, real or unreal: if you hear it you hear it. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly. Hearing is a PERCEPTION, not an absolute determination. We perceive what we perceive. The same is true of all our senses.
Claiming that you hear what you hear is perfectly OK. Everyone does.
Everyone hears what they hear, just as they eat what they eat. Read this statement again and see if it sinks in.
People who hear ringing in their ears from tinnintus, or a moving train from a stereo recording hear exactly that: not a foghorn or a dog barking. It doesn't matter whether the source of a sound is internal or external, from your ears or from your eyes, real or unreal: if you hear it you hear it. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly. Hearing is a PERCEPTION, not an absolute determination. We perceive what we perceive. The same is true of all our senses.
Claiming that you hear what you hear is perfectly OK. Everyone does.
Last edited:
Sony unveils new high in Snake-Oil-ology!!
Copied from Sony's website on their high-end Walkman:
“The NW-ZX2 is an exercise in quality: The high stiffness and low contact resistance of the gold-plated copper chassis help produce clear and powerful sound in the low frequency range. Two dedicated clock oscillations enable completely synchronized demodulation for pure, uncompromising sound. A double layer capacitor ensures signal accuracy. A large-capacity Li-ion battery offers transparent highs and powerful lows. Higher resolution sound is achieved through carefully selected low-impedance parts including a thick copper foil main board.”
And my absolute favorite:
“Tin solder of more than 99.99% purity is used to achieve a more natural frequency balance.”
WOW! from a supposedly reputable manufacturer, that's a REALLY big load of B.S.!!!
Copied from Sony's website on their high-end Walkman:
“The NW-ZX2 is an exercise in quality: The high stiffness and low contact resistance of the gold-plated copper chassis help produce clear and powerful sound in the low frequency range. Two dedicated clock oscillations enable completely synchronized demodulation for pure, uncompromising sound. A double layer capacitor ensures signal accuracy. A large-capacity Li-ion battery offers transparent highs and powerful lows. Higher resolution sound is achieved through carefully selected low-impedance parts including a thick copper foil main board.”
And my absolute favorite:
“Tin solder of more than 99.99% purity is used to achieve a more natural frequency balance.”
WOW! from a supposedly reputable manufacturer, that's a REALLY big load of B.S.!!!
Binaural recording is very interesting. When I recorded from my own ears and played back through earbuds, the spacial presentation is so fascinating that it is hard to distinguish whether the person talking behind you is a recording or a real person.
About this "you hear what you hear" theory.
We all do moore or less hear or observe the same sounds but that`s were the likeness ends. What we then get out of it will depend on our education, our skills or sofware installed in our brains as I like to call it.
Even if an unskilled listener recieves the same sound-information it will not give him the same insight, understanding as a moore skilled listener. Like if we were to sleep out in some jungle for a night; all the sounds would mostly scare or confuse us while the native guide would recognize them all and understand their meaning. Because he has the right software installed for this task.
This is not so much about personal preferences or taste as about skill. While unskilled listeners often describes their observations wery differently, skilled (educated) listeners will agree a lot moore, simply because they have a deeper understanding.
We all do moore or less hear or observe the same sounds but that`s were the likeness ends. What we then get out of it will depend on our education, our skills or sofware installed in our brains as I like to call it.
Even if an unskilled listener recieves the same sound-information it will not give him the same insight, understanding as a moore skilled listener. Like if we were to sleep out in some jungle for a night; all the sounds would mostly scare or confuse us while the native guide would recognize them all and understand their meaning. Because he has the right software installed for this task.
This is not so much about personal preferences or taste as about skill. While unskilled listeners often describes their observations wery differently, skilled (educated) listeners will agree a lot moore, simply because they have a deeper understanding.
The second it follows exactly from your first sentence. The brain is a prediction machine. It sends to your consciousness a signal: 'this is what you are hearing'. That 'message' is a mental construct, as you correctly say, assembled from vibrations on your ear drum, parts of similar sounds remembered, parts from expectations, etc etc.
The real problem is that you don't know the separate parts. You can only figure out which part is from the eardrum vibrations and which part is from the other inputs if you do some clever tests.
Jan
It doesn't matter where the other inputs come from. What we actually hear is the sum total of all those inputs after they have been processed by our brain (see post 8223). This may well differ from what other people hear or what an accurate recording system later reproduces. Nevertheless IT IS WHAT WE HEAR.
Take the famous gorilla on the basketball court video. When first viewed I genuinely didn't see a gorilla. When questioned whether I had seen a gorilla* on the court I hand on heart stated that I had not. However having been asked the question and viewing the video for a second time without attempting to count the number of ball bounces a gorilla was clearly visible.
This doesn't take away from the fact that in the first instance I genuinely did not see a gorilla. The act of mentally tracking ball bounces was obviously affecting my perception. Nevertheless I saw what I saw and the fact that there was actually a gorilla present does not alter that fact one iota. We all see what we see and hear what we hear no matter whether it happens to differ from our peers or is actually present or not. To suggest otherwise is a complete fallacy which denies that vision and hearing are the outcomes of complex PROCESSES unique to each individual.
I really don't see why this appears to be such a difficult concept to grasp.
*someone later tried to tell me that it was a man in a gorilla suit.
Last edited:
A lot of overbuilt audio gear gets sold with this pitch.
I suggest first trusting your brain.
I really don't appreciate being lectured on understanding my native language by someone who can't even properly spell its name.
The statement "Everyone hears what they hear" is hopelessly vague. It can mean whatever someone wants it to mean.
Nobody with a brain says that tinnitus sounds like foghorns or that moving trains sound like dogs barking. The sentence makes no sense.
That's a deflection. The question is not whether you hear something but whether what you hear is reliable and representative.
Then stop arguing with yourself about it!
Again we have a deflection, an introduction of a spurious and irrelevant issue.
We also have a vast oversimplification of the well-known realities of perception: Some of what we perceive is not reliable and/or is not representative. Since real time and money can be involved, issues of reliability and relevance are can be important to many.
A meaningless, irrelevant truism. A deflection instead of a response.
The real issue is the relevance and reliability of what we think we hear, not whether we think we hear something.
We think we hear something, but is it what we think it is?
If not, we call it an illusion, and if so we call it a reliable perception.
It's totally pointless arguing with you, as you read what you want to into every statement I make instead of attempting to comprehend and address the actual issues raised. I did not write that tinnitus sounded like foghorns or dogs barking: instead I implied the opposite. Either you don't understand English (which I am beginning to think is a distinct possibility) or you thought it would be a convenient statement to attack, so you just made it up. I prefer to interact with people who demonstate a basic comprehension of English and a somewhat firmer grip on reality. Being lectured by illiterate narcissists is not one of my favourite pastimes.
If you still wish to believe that criticising people for stating that they hear what they hear (the original issue which you appear to have entirely forgotten or deliberately ignored) isn't just a little bit silly then so be it. I'm fed up trying to spoon feed you, and I can't cure rank stupidity.
Feel free to continue fighting windmills and constructing straw men with which to battle. I can't be bothered responding to your next fantasy.
If you still wish to believe that criticising people for stating that they hear what they hear (the original issue which you appear to have entirely forgotten or deliberately ignored) isn't just a little bit silly then so be it. I'm fed up trying to spoon feed you, and I can't cure rank stupidity.
Feel free to continue fighting windmills and constructing straw men with which to battle. I can't be bothered responding to your next fantasy.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.