I'll let CERN know that until they can hear a Higg's Boson coming off a collision that their tests are null and void. 😉
I admire your effort to twist logic, but fortunately our technological progress and our deepening understanding the universe has been greatly accelerated by our ability to measure to new depths (and this feeds back on itself to make better measurement equipment!).
Last edited:
Abrax, I'm utterly lost as to the point you're trying to make. Surely you're not suggesting I'm going to read a 1 as a 3 just because I want to? Weird results will of course need to be retested to ensure a measurement is well made. Are you trying to argue that there are audible effects buried below that which test equipment can identify? (for electronics at least, which is the bone of contention in this thread; in-room acoustic measurements are a much, much harder problem) I fear you'll find yourself on thin ice if that's your stance.
Let's be more literal taking Robert's baby: importance of extremely fast circuitry in phono and line-level electronics (since that's all he makes presently). In this case, test two equivalent gain blocks (one with a super high slew rate opamp, and another with a slower opamp of otherwise similar performance) with a suite of audio signals. Compare their respective results. Where are the differences present? What is the magnitude of the effect?
Or pick your own project about PSRR in opamps. What are the results of your interventions versus following datasheet suggestions? Give us a ballpark to their magnitude and effect.
Where do you want to say an effect is audible? -140 dB the desired signal? -20 dB? Given the complexity of masking, maybe let's super-conservatively ballpark that standard around -80 dB.
Abrax--if you have a point, make it. Stop making nebulous points and then suggesting that I'm never going to get it. Of course not, I have no idea what you're trying to prove. Give me more context to work from.
I very clearly wrote that I don't trust poorly-controlled listening impressions. And ask for measurements to show the effects people are claiming are important. We can argue back and forth about audibility after that. I'll (and hopefully all other participants!) will learn a valuable lesson: that the effect being claimed is either important or not (at the level being tested). Would it help to state clearly that test equipment (and attendant explanations of said tests) provide lumps of credence, and are (theoretically) reproducible? Do I need to go into the core tenets of the scientific process and it's interplay with the sloppy humans that are driving it forward?
So help me out: interpret your elegant but contextless retort "Then neither do your eyes."
Let me be clear, a lack of explanation is going to be interpreted as a desire to just give me a run around. And that says more about you than me.
I very clearly wrote that I don't trust poorly-controlled listening impressions. And ask for measurements to show the effects people are claiming are important. We can argue back and forth about audibility after that. I'll (and hopefully all other participants!) will learn a valuable lesson: that the effect being claimed is either important or not (at the level being tested). Would it help to state clearly that test equipment (and attendant explanations of said tests) provide lumps of credence, and are (theoretically) reproducible? Do I need to go into the core tenets of the scientific process and it's interplay with the sloppy humans that are driving it forward?
So help me out: interpret your elegant but contextless retort "Then neither do your eyes."
Let me be clear, a lack of explanation is going to be interpreted as a desire to just give me a run around. And that says more about you than me.
Last edited:
As I've already said, there's no point. Did you miss that the first time around? If so then that's more evidence you're not seeing straight. I'm here holding up a mirror to your own inconsistencies, but it seems your need to be right is interfering with your perceptual process of turning words on a screen into meaning. That's fine, you're human like everyone else.
Of course there's nothing at all 'nebulous' in pointing out your claim ('twisted logic') is without basis in fact.
You want rigorous experimental controls for audible perception but you reject similar rigor for visual perception? I'm saying I'm fine with rigor but it does need to be applied consistently. If you're ruling out primary audible perception without controls why wouldn't it be OK to rule out primary visual perception without controls?
You do make me laugh 😀
Save
Last edited:
Again without controls. You could ask the gallery to show you what you clearly don't wish to see, peer review is there for a reason 🙂
Wow that must be a record number of posts from abrax without him mentioning transformers as the cure all. 😛
Bill you need to get out more and go back further in time to prior to my discovery of them, its fairly recent 😛
I can go back in time by getting out? Wow, you have time travel to add to your list of skills?
Over in the "other thread" , that I just started, I gave an analogy to a person with OCD, and mentioned how the "ear" may well "hear" things that it finds to be "out of place" with far greater acuity than things that it hears as "natural" (aka normal and expected). This was a conjecture as to why and how this happens, and some people seem to notice it more than others (some not at all)...
...if this is a reasonable and true phenomenon, then there is no metric at present that is suitable to discern it.
...if this is a reasonable and true phenomenon, then there is no metric at present that is suitable to discern it.
A quick google search for maths and music.........
Seems there is a conspiracy to involve maths in everything including music.
We need to raise awareness here dammit!
"those people....i don't know those people" (the orange one)
Seems there is a conspiracy to involve maths in everything including music.
We need to raise awareness here dammit!
"those people....i don't know those people" (the orange one)
Last edited:
Some is. But we are not talking about creation, we are talking about reproduction. You know, High Fidelity? You want out exactly what was put in.
Now some (or should that be many) don't want hi-fi, they want to have their own musical instrument to mangle the sound to a pleasant euphonic soup. That's their choice and fine as long as they realise it's a preference and not 'better' or 'more accurate'.
Since these transforms are commutative, this should also work the other way around. Have you tried?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.